 |
|
FEEDBACK  |
|
 |
|
October 2002 letters So-called inclusive language does violence to Scripture October 30, 2002 I am distressed that the Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity has been unable to move beyond the "touchy-feely-Kum-Ba-Yah" stage to their real work after four meetings. I am dismayed that the members do not seem willing to actually vote on anything and reportedly are still concerned about the presence of the press. And I am distraught that any consideration is being given to doing violence to the Biblical revelation of the proper names for the persons of the Trinity for the sake of "inclusiveness." I cannot imagine (but maybe I could Re-Imagine) a context wherein a reference to one of the persons of the Christian Trinity – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – could be conceived of as a non-Trinitarian practice and so to be acceptable and encouraged. Frankly, if God had wanted to reveal himself in so-called inclusive terms he could have – indeed, he would have. But the fact is we have the revelation in languages that know nothing of this so-called inclusiveness, which really flows from the particular presuppositions of late-20th century liberal and feminist theology. I believe that so-called "inclusive language" is inherently exclusive. "Inclusive language" is inclusive only for those people whose point of view/philosophy/theological position/political agenda see it as such. But it is exclusive in that it does not include those who hold to a more traditional or orthodox position. And it becomes a justice issue when it is imposed upon or force-fed to people with a traditional or orthodox commitment. There is no place in the Christian faith for addressing God the Father as "Mother/Father." The revelation in the Bible does not permit it. That the task force has already begun to use this verbiage in its worship leaves me aghast. It is only more evidence to me of the liberal theological rot that is undermining the PCUSA. If we cannot get the revealed name and work of God the Father right is it any wonder that we are unable to agree on the person and work of God the Son? Unless our long-term goal is syncretism with paganism and heterodoxy, I doubt we will advance in Peace, Unity and Purity until we get our God-talk back to orthodoxy. Rev. Bill Pawson Westminster Church Canton, Ohio Clarification needed on bisexuality October 30, 2002 I would like to thank Earl C. Apel for explaining to me his definition of a bisexual relationship. It seems as if he speaks from experience, so I would not want to debate the issue with him. I would still like some clarification. So what exactly is a bisexual relationship if there are only two people involved, and what distinguishes a bisexual from a homosexual or heterosexual relationship? And on the issue of sin: What is the Scriptural basis for allowing a person to have sex with whatever human they would choose as a partner, but disallow the choice of having an animal partner? Is the sin of bestiality considered still sin, but the sin of homosexuality is no longer sin? Brian Ahier Deacon Gateway Presbyterian Church The Dalles, Ore. Bisexual friends are in a faithful relationship with spouse October 30, 2002 In a letter of October 24, 2002 to the Layman Online, "Reader confused by statement of Downtown Church," Brian Ahier, Deacon of Gateway Presbyterian Church, The Dalles, Ore, said the following: "Even if I were to concede that same-sex sexual relationships were not sinful acts, how in the world does bisexual sex become holy? By definition bisexual sex would entail multiple partners of both sexes." I used to have similar notions about bisexuality, until I actually became friends with Presbyterians who are bisexuals. They clarified for me that bisexuality means that a person has physical attraction for persons of both sexes. Whereas, heterosexuals have attractions for persons of the opposite sex. A heterosexual male may be attracted to women, while expressing his sexuality physically with his spouse. In a similar manner, a bisexual man may be attracted to both men and women, while expressing his sexuality physically with his spouse. Being faithful in relationship with one's spouse is something I observe to be true of my bisexual friends, especially those Christian friends who are Presbyterian. I encourage Mr. Ahier to meet and talk with the people about whom he speaks. Something that Jesus also encourages us all to do. Ralph Carter Deacon Third Presbyterian Church Rochester N.Y. Minority erodes Church's foundation by undermining Biblical authority October 30, 2002 According to John Adams' report, Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick sees radically trimming the Book of Order as a way of promoting unity in the Presbyterian Church (USA). Kirkpatrick seeks thereby to de-emphasize these points of contention. After all, if the Book of Order says nothing about it, we Presbyterians can agree to disagree and can continue to share in the work of spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for "Presbyterians are united in their basic and primary commitment to God in Jesus Christ." Unfortunately, Kirkpatrick insists on looking at the Church through rose-colored glasses. In fact, his insistence on downplaying differences between Presbyterians makes one wonder if he's living in the same world as the rest of us. The last quote of the first paragraph came from Kirkpatrick's book, What Unites Presbyterians, as its most emphatic statement (p. 25). However, it is patently untrue. Although it is true of the majority of Presbyterians, there is a substantial and vocal minority within the Presbyterian Church (USA) that actively rebels against Jesus Christ as he is revealed through the pages of his inerrant Word, the Bible. Jesus Christ alone is the Lord and Head of the Church, just as he alone is the Lord of the conscience. Even most of the vocal minority will say this. The problem is that they don't believe it. The vocal minority seeks to erode the Church's foundation by undermining the Biblical authority and instead building the Church upon shifting sand, represented by the spirit of the age, which in the contemporary world is represented by the absolutizing of tolerance, inclusivity and the relative faith of the individual. It is this spirit of the age that the vocal minority holds as its word of its god. The vocal minority loudly proclaims that God alone is Lord of the conscience, but inasmuch as they refuse to put their trust in Jesus Christ as he is revealed in the Scriptures, they do not mean what they say. For to them, the spirit of the age is the lord of their consciences, and to repeat the familiar adage, "She who weds the spirit of the age will find herself a widow in the next." Consequently, Kirkpatrick's recommendation of abridging the Book of Order will end only in exacerbating the current conflict. Rather than drawing the Presbyterian Church (USA) to a greater unity in the faith, if his ill-conceived idea takes root, it will but serve to hasten her demise. Loren J. Golden Overland Park, Kan. Constitution cannot be upheld both ways October 30, 2002 One hopes that Mr. Warritin is only missing the point about liberals "changing sides," which was in reference to obedience to the constitution of the church. It is more likely, however, that he is following a typical liberal trend in claiming that a "principle" (i.e., inclusiveness) was the guiding motivation all along and never a rage for constitutional order. Ahh, Mr. Warritin, that may sadly be so, but the truth is that when the constitution argued for a position liberals deemed "inclusive," they fought and still fight like tigers protecting their young to enforce by every constitutional measure. Let the constitution include provisions liberals deem counter to "inclusiveness," and the constitution is to be disobeyed and left null and void. The problem, sir, is that it cannot be upheld both ways. If it is principled to disobey the constitution for "inclusiveness" sake, then it is arguably principled to ignore it for the sake of not ordaining women based on a possible interpretation of Scripture or principled to leave the denomination with one's property without penalty or paying some extortionary fee simply because the constitution is proved a toothless document to be set aside by individual or congregational devotion to a "principle." Of course, conservatives are tired of the old mantra about inclusiveness. Ordination is a calling for responsibility, not a right or sign of membership. The question has never been about including people within the membership of Christ's church, but who may rightly be considered called (which in the Presbyterian and Reformed tradition is never merely an individual decision or even congregational decision) to leadership within the church. Leaders within the church should live lives which are much closer to the Scripturally prescribed life of holiness and faithfulness than perhaps the average church member simply because a leader's life and teaching will potentially influence more of the average church members than other individual members. Rev. Scott R. Mackey Ft. Worth, Texas Clerk's idea: A thinly disguised attempt to change ordination standard October 30, 2002 Let's be truthful. The current Book of Order is much too long. We really need a foundational document that requires a supermajority to amend. The problem with the one proposed by our clerk is that it leaves out the important statement on ordination. I see it as a thinly disguised attempt to get our ordination standards changed without confronting the issue head-on. This will never pass. To have any chance of passing, a shortened Book of Order must include a strong statement on traditional sexual ethics and ordination. I believe that the more conservative part of our church would support such a document. James Quillin Task force should consider third chapter of 2 Timothy October 30, 2002 Since we are no longer members of the PCUSA, I'm a little reluctant to suggest any course of action relative to the conflict that is tearing at the structure of the PCUSA. But, as an outsider, and also a member of a mainline denomination that is exploring the matter of human sexuality for the purpose of deciding whether to ordain practicing GLBT people, I think I have something to offer. I appreciate the effort of the task force to consider using the Nicene Creed as a basis upon which to explore resolutions of the differences plaguing the PCUSA. As an option, why not consider using the third chapter of 2 Timothy? Clearly, the challenge from Paul to Timothy is to understand that the Christian church's greater enemy is from within, from among those who have lost sight of Jesus as Lord in pursuit of Jesus as savior. And I use savior here to mean Jesus as affirming a particular point of view, whether it be Confessing Churches in pursuit of church reform or GLBT people in pursuit of church endorsement or denominational leaders who are letting their "body" bleed to death. All of the great church statesmen – Paul, Peter, John, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Bonhoeffer, and others – have made it clear: We must make a choice to serve the Living Lord in accord with his voice that we read in his Word and understand through the accepted Reformed confessions, or we must go our own way, apart from his Word and these confessions, which will lead to our personal doom and the destruction of many who might follow. John C. Ramsey Medina, Ohio 'All inclusive' means they will do as they please October 30, 2002 I read about "defying the Book of Church Order," "not abiding by the constitution," "not following church polity," well the More Lights do not need a Book of Church Order or any other rules and regulations to follow. They are "all inclusive" which means they are going to do as they please. They don't even need the Bible, because they surely are not living by it, and now they are trying to rewrite it. I think it is time to tell them to "get out." And if the higher-ups, as well as any pastors, agree with them, they need to get out also. Margaret Gibson Renegades have trashed the Lord's Supper October 28, 2002 Not satisfied with open defiance that threatens to shred the Constitution of the PCUSA into so much confetti, an outlaw band of renegades, who have the arrogance to still claim to be Presbyterian though they have essentially said they have no use for Presbyterian polity or discipline, have now trashed the Lord's Supper! We've now had communion served from a "table" covered with prayers affirming that which God has declared sin is now holy. Maybe next time, there will be a pro-partial birth abortion group that will want to use the table from an abortionist's execution chamber. May God forgive the evangelicals in this denomination if we do not take a stand now. And may God bless those faithful evangelicals who gathered in Louisville on the 28th to both take that stand, and call others to rouse themselves and demand the Bible be affirmed and the Constitution of the PCUSA upheld. Jim Wilken, pastor Chillisquaque Presbyterian Church Pottsgrove, Pa. Achtemeier: Articulate, committed defender of unborn children October 28, 2002 I am sorry to learn of the death of Dr. Elizabeth Achtemeier, professor emerita at Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, Va. She was, of course, a distinguished Old Testament scholar. But, more importantly, in my opinion, she was an articulate and committed defender of unborn children, who perish in staggering numbers every year in this country. Dr. Achtemeier strongly resisted what is called "the culture of death," even while our own Presbyterian Church (USA) has been co-opted by that particular culture on the abortion issue. Her prophetic voice will be sorely missed. I pray that we will learn from her commitment to the most vulnerable among us, the unborn children of America. Rev. John Erthein Pastor, Elderton Presbyterian Church Elderton, Pa. PCUSA does not have 'clergy' October 28, 2002 In reading the notice of a document to be nailed to the doors of the PCUSA offices, I am disturbed by the use of the term "clergy" in the article. Our Presbyterian polity does not use the term "clergy." We have members and officers, who are ministers of the Word and Sacraments, elders and deacons. Please be more faithful to our tradition when describing activities of PCUSA members and officers. Jay Wilkins Trinity Presbyterian Church Berwyn, Pa. Consider the cost of not having a called meeting October 28, 2002 May Jesus Christ bless you, your readers and the Presbyterian Church (USA). I would like to share with your readers a message that I sent to a group of renewal-minded commissioners of the General Assembly. What follows is an adapted version of my original message. One opinion against having a Called Meeting of this General Assembly (GA) has been repeated several times now, yet without the support of any rationale or proof. The "argument" has been implied, rather than stated clearly. Because some have been influenced by this implied reason, it deserves a closer look. The Committee on the Office of the General Assembly (COGA) has written to us commissioners in order to persuade us not to call a meeting of the current GA. One tactic the committee uses is to estimate the cost of such a meeting to "be in excess of $400,000." The implication seems to be that such a cost is too much. However, if we compare this cost with that of another event sponsored by the General Assembly Council, this estimated cost looks like a good buy. In 1992, from October 29 through November 1, the GAC sponsored a convocation called "Discerning the Spirit, Envisioning Our Future," which was reported to have cost $500,000. This convocation, of which I was a participant, was attended by 467 Presbyterians. (I don't know whether the reported cost includes the printing of the 361-page book that contains all the reports and opinions that were recorded at the event, as well as the names of the participants.) A few things about that convocation are worth noting as a comparison with the proposed called meeting. As a participant I can testify that the convocation was a waste of time, money, and effort. I doubt that the book we produced has ever been taken seriously by anyone other than those who designed the event. How could it be? For the book is a chaotic collection of opinions spread over a wide range of topics. The group assembled had no authority to do anything for the denomination. We were asked to listen and to share. At the end of the first day there, we had a panicky sense of wasting a lot of money and our own time because the main leader decided that each one of us could post any topic and try to attract others into a group to discuss that topic, leading to a hundred different directions in which to go. On the second day there, I saw frantic attempts to carve out some kind of structure or order. I think some groups had some success, but even the success was lost in the ocean of other reports. So, why were we assembled at such a cost? I don't know, but I guess that we were supposed to help validate proposed changes to the structure of the GA offices. The changes came about a year later, but I doubt that those changes really needed the convocation's support. By the way, the main topic of division there was the same one that we are dealing with today – homosexuality. Now compare that convocation with our proposed meeting. I don't see how the COGA could complain when this time the denomination would get an approximate 20 percent reduction in costs (i.e., from $500,000 down to $400,000), an authoritative body of representatives that is capable of doing something for the church, and a much clearer agenda. We might have a truly constructive debate and action come from our proposed meeting, which might help turn our denomination around toward growth and good health. The money argument is unsound from the start. It is a scare tactic based on implications, rather than stated reasons. When we look at the cost in perspective with other events our leadership has tried, this proposed called meeting looks like a good investment – one that has, at the least, potential for doing good. Perhaps we should consider the cost of not having the called meeting. And we should consider whether money is the best or only way to measure the cost. Glen T. Eason Pastor, the Presbyterian Church of Osceola Mills Osceola Mills, Pa. Commissioner of the 214th General Assembly Achtemeier correct: PCUSA should get back to its roots October 28, 2002 Mark Achtemeier is correct to encourage the PCUSA to get back to its roots on being a church of confessions and creeds and that is the beauty of the PCUSA, confessions and creeds. Lou. S. Nowasielski Wilmington, Del. 'The Nicene Creed is bedrock Christianity' October 28, 2002 Bravo, Mark! This is exactly the kind of thing on which the task force needs to be focusing. The Nicene Creed is bedrock Christianity. If you can't affirm it, you aren't Christian – period! The discomfort expressed by some members indicates how far away from traditional Christian thinking the Presbyterian Church (USA) has strayed. Fred H. Anderson Honorably retired Presbyterian minister Salem, S.D. A 'committed' relationship is holy October 28, 2002 Brian Ahier is incorrect in his statement about bisexuals that "By definition bisexual sex would entail multiple partners of both sexes." Having multiple partners is simply known as promiscuity, nothing more. The bisexual has the capability of loving one person of the same-sex or opposite-sex. This does not mean he/she desires to have more than one partner at one time and in fact often doesn't. Otherwise if we are to use such logic as suggested by Deacon Ahier we could conclude that the heterosexual lifestyle is not considered holy. For there are plenty of examples of where heterosexuals have multiple partners. The answer is quite simple. Having a committed loving relationship with another person is what is holy regardless of one's sexual orientation or gender identity. Earl C. Apel Deacon (until removed) Mt. Auburn Presbyterian Church Cincinnati, Ohio Liberals have not changed sides October 28, 2002 To the letter writer who suggests that liberals have changed sides – au contraire. The Northern Church has ordained women since 1954, with the first ordination of Margaret Towner. It was a belief that was founded on the fact that gender does not determine worthiness for ministry: and a need for inclusiveness. In the merger of the north and south in the 1980's, the closed minded were given an option to leave if they didn't accept inclusiveness. Many did. We don't miss them. The move to include gays and lesbians is also based on inclusiveness not on constitutional requirements. Sexual orientation is not about ability to minister and to care and to preach the gospel. The liberals haven't changed. We still believe in inclusiveness. Ben Warritin PCUSA and Achtemeier miss the point October 28, 2002 Are the divisions facing the PCUSA really all that difficult to understand? Do they actually require a task force and time measured in years to identify and document? Does P. Mark Achtemeier really believe the secret to understanding these issues lie in the extraneous 4th-century writings of other men? I suspect the problem is much closer to home and reflects a sweeping Biblical theme. Knowing what is right, do we have the courage and conviction to act on it? When contrasting the options to obey God or not obey God in Deuteronomy 30, God encouraged his people to obey, to choose life. Will the PCUSA have the courage and conviction to choose life? Steve Liguori Rochester, N.Y. Liberals have switched sides on obeying constitution October 24, 2002 Having served the Presbyterian church as a minister for 20 years I can remember the great crisis our denomination faced when it was mandated to ordain women officers. There were many ministers who did not believe it was Biblical to do so. Even those who said they would work with women elders but not ordain them were hastily cast out of the PCUSA ministry with no recourse. We stood by the Book of Order's newly mandated order then. The liberals especially used words like "Bad Presbyterians" to ministers who had served 30, 40 years in the church for refusing to change their minds. I heard many sermons preached on presbytery floors saying we must obey the constitution and Book of Order or we would be thrown out on our ears. Today these very same people have changed sides entirely taking great pride in breaking the Book of Order with little thought as to future consequences of such action because they realize they cannot trust the denominational process to get their way. Now the "Bad Presbyterians" are those who want to enforce the constitution. And this is not something that has just popped into the constitution like mandating women elders. This is something that has been consistently upheld since 1978 as liberals have tried to chip, bang, and knock the ban on unrepentant sinners out of the Book of Order without success. I can only respond "Thou Hypocrite!" Don Michael Hurray Pastor, Mountville Presbyterian Church Portersville, Pa. People long for 'Biblical Correctness' over political correctness October 24, 2002 I am a member of a small Presbyterian church in the liberal Rochester, NY (Genesee) Presbytery. As our faith's most basic beliefs come increasingly under attack both nationally and locally, our membership continues to erode away. Yet, we find ourselves asking "what is it that attracts all those young families to the growing number of conservative (and in many cases nondenominational) churches that are popping up all around our area?" Duhhh! People of all colors and backgrounds are longing for a faith that focuses its attention on Biblical Correctness instead of political correctness. I predict the new (and first) PCA church in our area will grow quickly. Dale Kriewall Time has come for evangelicals to take decisive action October 24, 2002 Elder Cary Wilkins is absolutely right. We have been complaining for too long about the outrageous defiance of the liberals. They have been defying both the Bible and the subordinate standards of the church for most of the century. The time has come for the orthodox within the PCUSA to take genuine, decisive action, even at the risk of losing it all. My fear is that the evangelicals do not have the nerve or the character to do what it will take to solve the denomination's problems permanently. What is necessary is strong church discipline. Evangelicals must demand that either the disobedient will be disciplined, and disciplined immediately, or they will leave. There are no other God-honoring options. The Confessing Movement was great. It showed that there are still orthodox voices in the church. But, what will it do now? Enough with the conferences! Do something, or be silent. In other words, put up or shut up. David Spor Tully Memorial Presbyterian Church Conservatives: Get more involved October 24, 2002 I tend to agree with the majority of your readership, that the GA does not represent the majority of the congregants of the PCUSA. As a matter of fact, they don't even represent the majority of the ministers and elders of this church, if you believe what comes out of the votes from presbyteries, since these representatives are only elders and Ministers of the Word and Sacraments. But, why is this so? I believe it is very simple. A great majority of conservative ministers and elders do not want to spend some of their hard earned time at a General Assembly, where a larger number of liberal ministers and elders do. I believe it is that simple. Take for instance, the conservative readership of The Layman. Many state the question why can't we get a more representative body at the GA. Why don't those elders and ministers who are asking that question state that they would gladly go to a General Assembly? I realize that you work hard all year and want to enjoy your two weeks of vacation, instead of spending your time at another Presbyterian meeting. But so do the liberal ministers and elders who do go. If not you, then who? Who are those who do tend to go? Those who are more interested in voting than complaining about the vote. They seem to be more liberal and moderate than conservative. But as Barry Farber use to say about the liberal press, this is not some nefarious plot, but that which seems to be natural. The liberals seem to be more interested in the GA than conservatives. If that was not true, conservatives would be in the majority at GA. So, get more involved in your particular church. Study the Word and become part of the community. If asked, become an elder or deacon. When chances come to go to presbytery, sign up to go. Same holds true for synod, or GA. State to the presbytery you would like to go to synod or GA, and maybe you'll have bad luck and actually be asked be a rep from your presbytery. Doug Gailey Elder St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Dunedin, Fla. Reader confused by statement of Downtown Church October 24, 2002 I am astounded that so many churches are openly defying our Church Constitution. I am particularly confused concerning some of the recent statements of the Downtown United Presbyterian Church in Rochester, N.Y., which said, among other things, that they could not "agree with an interpretation of that law which subverts the welcoming essence of our faith and results in the categorical exclusion of all those persons who are in a lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender relationship. We do not believe that same sex relationships are inherently sinful." Even if I were to concede that same-sex sexual relationships were not sinful acts, how in the world does bisexual sex become holy? By definition bisexual sex would entail multiple partners of both sexes. Many of the advocates for allowing the ordination of homosexuals are claiming that they are in loving, holy and committed relationships. Would they also claim that this is possible with multiple partners? As a heterosexual husband, would this mean that I could have holy sexual relationships with women other than my wife, or is this type of activity only allowed for homosexuals and bisexuals? Brian Ahier Deacon Gateway Presbyterian Church The Dalles, Ore. Who is divisive? October 24, 2002 It will be interesting to see if they are slandered and threatened as much for defying the constitution as we have been for upholding it. Maybe our bureaucracy will arrange a parade. Please excuse the sarcasm; but isn't it ironic to see officers and others in our franchise turning the other cheek to those who defy our constitution while accusing those who uphold it of being divisive. Dr. Robert R. Kopp Haberer is wrongheaded about defiance October 23, 2002 God bless Jack Haberer, but he is wrongheaded about defiance. Citizenship in the church, unlike citizenship in the USA, is based upon affirmation and integrity. Joining the Communist Party and shouting defiance at the government is not of necessity treason against the USA. However, the church is a voluntary organization. Statements of defiance are by their very nature repudiations of jurisdiction. Religious affirmations are, by their very nature, acts. For example, we are saved though faith, not good deeds. A new reality is created by our verbal assent to the grace of God. For example, Peter's denial of Christ was tantamount to crucifying Jesus. Peter did not have to drive the nails into his hands to subvert the authority and ministry of Jesus. Words were enough. Vociferous defiance in an affirmational organization is harmful and tantamount to actively deconstructing that organization. Dissent and defiance are two different things. Defiance is dissent put into action. Bruce Becker First Presbyterian Church of Olney Philadelphia, Pa. Methodists know difficulties of enforcing church discipline October 23, 2002 The difficulties of enforcing church discipline are well known to us in the United Methodist Church. In defiance of the democratic will of the General Conference, our connectional rules continue to be frustrated and frayed by acts of church agents, including our bishops. Presbyterians appear to further along in adapting new vocabularies and strategies for dealing with protracted conflict and determined opponents. We are learning from your words and actions. Rev. Gary Starkey Westpark United Methodist Church Yakima, Wash. COM's treatment of Fowler: An outrage! October 23, 2002 What is being done regarding the failure of the COM of Central Florida Presbytery to grant presbytery membership to the Rev. Carmen Fowler? I think this is an outrage! When a Presbyterian minister is not seated in a Presbytery simply because she is a faithful Minister of Word and Sacrament it is shameful. There should be a loud outcry from ministers and elders within that presbytery. The Rev. Brad Napier First Presbyterian Church Brownstown, Ind. Special meeting of GA is long overdue October 23, 2002 Thank God for Dr. Metherell. Cultural ethics prevail amongst the leadership of the PCUSA. They seem to be possessed of a desire to promote the homosexual agenda within the church and amongst its leadership. The Constitution has been purposely set aside and not upheld because of the aforementioned agenda. A special meeting on enforcement of constitutional standards with regard to sexual conduct and same sex marriages is long overdue. Richard H. Sharrett, MD Elder, Fanwood Presbyterian Church Elizabeth Presbytery, N.J. PCUSA in crisis; PFR in denial October 22, 2002 When I think of the "actions" of Presbyterians For Renewal and many other renewal groups within the PCUSA, I want to shout the words of James 2:14: "Isn't it obvious that God-talk without God-acts is outrageous nonsense?" (The Message). I strongly disagree with the position of the PFR Board concerning the call for reconvening the 214th GA. I favor a "re-call" because it represents action. I believe the PCUSA is in the midst of a constitutional crisis and that renewal groups like PFR are in major denial when thinking that the system's corrupt judicial processes will take care of the problems. It is times like this that I know God is calling for bold action – actions that communicate unequivocally to the world that we will hold our denomination's leaders accountable to the constitution and, more importantly, to the standards set for us by our Creator, Jehovah Elyon. These are standards that have withstood centuries of criticism, dissension, and manipulation by self-centered leaders in the church – but not without the bold leadership of men and women of God who were willing to "lose it all" to "gain it all" for Jesus Christ. I believe that, as a consequence of our relative inaction, God is turning away from the PCUSA. The steadily declining membership numbers, the incessant debates over matters that should never have been debated to begin with (who is Jesus Christ? God or Goddess? etc.), and the postmodernistic ways of our denomination leadership are just some of the signs that this denomination is becoming a church of "dry bones." And it will remain so until we have more leaders who will rise up to stand firmly and without fear against the false teachers and leaders of this denomination. That is why I support a call to reconvene the 214th. It is a stand – it is real action in the face of years of blah-blah words, bland conciliation and disingenuous "dialogue." It is the first "nail" in the posting of the "theses" of orthodoxy to the doors of the PCUSA headquarters. PFR, quit the so-called "dialogue" and move to genuine, denomination-delivering, church-changing, God-awesome action! Cary Wilkins Elder 214th General Assembly was misled October 22, 2002 In response to Kelly Gartner's letter, there's one important fact that Kelly left out: The last word in the debate over 02-59 was that the offending party had made significant steps toward compliance. That doesn't seem to be the case now. I'm still undecided on the called meeting, but I do feel that 214th was misled. Steven S. Bryant Minister commissioner 214th General Assembly Church seems lost on issue of homosexuality October 22, 2002 My husband and I both attended Presbyterian churches as children, so it is sad to us that the church seems to be so lost on the issue of homosexuality. We don't think anything could be clearer than the Lord's position on it as being a sin – certainly not the only sin – but not an accepted life style. I've worked with several gay people, both male and female, and depression and anger have been their main theme. I think we don't condemn the sinner but the sin, but to encourage it as "normal" just brings more misery to more people. Suzanne Heskett Liberal elitists have stranglehold on PCUSA October 22, 2002 I would like to thank the Rev. Barbara G. Hagar, attorney and member and clerk of the PJC of Southern New England Presbytery, for her frank and rather shocking admissions in the letter recently published by The Layman Online. My friends, there it is in black and white written as clearly as you could ever have demanded: our Constitution will never be enforced as long as the "powers that be" in some liberal presbyteries have this sort of an attitude. Simply read the letter. What else needs to be said? As long as liberal elitists with extremist views have a stranglehold on decision-making bodies, the common people in the pews can always expect their voices to be squelched, derided, and utterly ignored. May God have mercy! Rev. J.P. Thornton Bland, Va. Commissioners trusted the constitutional process October 18, 2002 In response to Alex Metherell's request that commissioners to the 214th General Assembly sign a petition asking for a called meeting of the General Assembly, I feel compelled to point out that 77 percent of commissioners voted to disapprove Overture 02-59, which asked the GA to intervene in a disciplinary case involving the Presbytery of Northern New England, after a lengthy and thoughtful debate. We were provided with numerous resources both for and against the overture, including a last-minute letter to the commissioners from the members of the minority report which thanked the Advisory Committee on the Constitution for its "good word and ... counsel" and encouraged the GA to "commend the model of pastoral patience" demonstrated by the Presbytery of Northern New England. Despite the minority report's urging that the Assembly "soothe troubled waters," the commissioners concurred with the the Committee on Polity's decision to take no further action in the matter of Londonderry vs. Presbytery of Northern New England. Appropriate procedures were followed, and the commissioners made their decision. Furthermore, the petition asks the commissioners to take action based on judicial cases that were not part of the business before the Assembly. More than two-thirds of commissioners trusted our constitutional system then, and there is every reason to uphold that trust now. A called meeting of the General Assembly does nothing to further the peace, purity, and unity of the denomination we all love so much. Kelly Gartner Elder Commissioner to the 214th General Assembly Presbytery of New Covenant Redirecting mission money could hurt October 18, 2002 I certainly respect the decision of all those who feel called to sign on to this prophetic statement, "A Call to Confession and Repentance." While I can agree with much of the call, my assessment of the situation differs on one point: "Refrain from giving undesignated mission money to any governing body of the denomination." God has mightily transformed the Worldwide Ministries Division (WMD) of the General Assembly in recent years. I believe this is one of the "bright spots" in the PCUSA at this time. Some exciting developments include partnerships with Presbyterian Frontier Fellowship and the Outreach Foundation. God has opened doors for mission partnerships in some of the "-stan" countries of central Asia, so that indigenous sisters and brothers in Christ may be equipped to bring the hope of Jesus Christ to many Muslim neighbors. The process for recruitment for missionaries has been streamlined, freeing up local presbyteries to seek out the "brightest and best" among them to discern God's call as mission co-workers. Now, presbyteries may support new missionaries with 80 percent of support, while the General Assembly will provide 20 percent of funding. I am open to correction, but I believe that 20 percent comes from UN-designated giving. Further changes now make it possible for PCUSA personnel to serve with some parachurch mission agencies as well. I was privileged to serve as a committee member and then chairperson of the Mission Personnel Task Force of the Presbytery of Western North Carolina. This was formed in light of the new possibilities for recruitment and support after the "San Gabriel" overture approved by General Assembly in the mid '90s. Furthermore, I am fairly certain that a good percentage of undesignated giving goes to support the administration of the overall program of the WMD. It is true that there are some missionaries who may be following agendas that do not please many evangelicals. Yet, I think we would make a shambles of the infrastructure of this great movement God began through the American Presbyterian Church over 150 years ago if a large percentage of evangelical congregations redirected undesignated mission benevolences. David L. Bierschwale Presbyterian Church of the Master A Confessing Church Coon Rapids, Minnesota |
|
| October
2002 letters, page 2 Home · News · PLC Publications · The Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |