July 2006 letters Archives of letters to the editor

It's clear enough: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. End of discussion, end of debate July 27, 2006 There has been much ado about naming the Trinity. The answer is simple enough that even theology professors ought to get it. If we believe that Jesus is fully human and fully divine, which is a tenet of the Christian faith, then, he ought to have the answer in addressing the Almighty. As I recall my Scripture, Jesus exclusively addresses God as "Father." That settles that portion of the Trinity question. Jesus was, in his incarnation, male. That settles the "Son" portion. In Acts 2:4 it clearly states "All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit ..." That settles the "Holy Spirit" portion. It's clear enough, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. End of discussion, end of debate. The defense rests. Mike Jensen Overland Park, Kan. 'Why is there a need for an immediate separation?' July 27, 2006 We are living in some troubling times, and it is my prayer that we as evangelicals can work jointly in making a difference. I am very concerned that The Layman and New Wineskins Initiative is heading down one path and the Coalition and other renewal groups are heading down another based on the open letters both have presented to the churches at large. It is almost a certainty that a division will happen in our denomination, because what we are really disputing is the authority of the Word of God over our lives. However, now may not be the time for the division to take place. We need each other as evangelicals, and we need to provide a unifying vision. Not a single evangelical church has been forced to ordain anyone, and no one has been forced to recognize an ordination done in violation of our constitution since GA met. This is not the first time God has dealt with an apostate situation. God made up his mind that because of Solomon's apostate condition, the kingdom of Israel would be split into two kingdoms, yet God postponed that separation until after Solomon's death. When the kingdom was divided, it was the intervention of God's prophet that kept the two sides from going to battle with each other when the separation eventually took place. If we are being faithful in our mission to God where we are, why is there a need for an immediate separation? All of our problems in our churches are not being caused by our denomination. Our local church is as evangelical and Biblical as we can be, yet we have to have a 10 percent growth each year, just to stay even with the members we lose through deaths and transfers. Very few of our losses have anything to do with what GA does or does not do. Even when we divide as a denomination, reaching people for Christ is still going to be tough in our culture. We need each other. We challenge all of us as evangelicals to strive to become like the men of Issachar, in 1 Chronicles 12:32 in which it states, "men of Issachar, who understood the times and knew what Israel should do." We're not claiming the wisdom we need now, but we know we do not need to have a separation of some now, and another separation of a larger group in a few years. We believe there would be a built in animosity between the two groups if that should happen. We for one could use a revival in our own church to get people excited about winning the lost for Christ. Revs. Toby and Rick Gillespie-Mobley Lead us onward irrespective of pension or property concerns July 27, 2006 I used to think that, as a whole, Presbyterians were a fairly intelligent group of people. Recent actions of the Presbytery of Western North Carolina have certainly caused me to rethink that premise. How could an intelligent person participate in such a fairytale of a presbytery meeting? I can only imagine that maybe all of the adult delegates came down with some sudden illness and had to send their children to vote their proxies. But then again, children would have known better. I'm sure God has looked down upon this and exclaimed, "You can't make this stuff up!" I also read with great interest the letter (posted July 26, 2006) of Stephen A. Moss of Salisbury, N.C., a Constitutional Presbyterian. While I agree with the platform of the Constitutional Group and applaud their commitment to remain and work for renewal and reformation to save the denomination, I'm afraid their efforts may be futile. Please, before I'm accused of a lack of faith, let me say that I do believe all things are possible with God. However, I must ask myself why hasn't he intervened and accomplished this sought after reform. After all, we've been fighting this battle for 20 years or more. Things aren't getting better. To the contrary, things have been getting worse. I'm reminded of the story of the man who was caught in a flood. When the waters continued to rise he went up to the roof of his house to escape the water, all the time praying to God for deliverance. A boat came by to rescue him and he declined, saying that God would take care of him. As the waters continued to rise a helicopter came by offering to rescue him. Again, he declined saying God would save him. Well, the waters finally engulfed him and he drowned. When he saw God in heaven he asked him why he didn't save him. God immediately answered, "I sent you a boat and a helicopter which you refused." Are we listening to God? I've been a Presbyterian for all of my life, 57 years. I plan to be one for the rest of my life, although not in the PCUSA in its present weakened and apostate condition. My minister recently preached a sermon in which he said one of the things that keeps us from a close relationship with God is apathy. Well, this is no time to be apathetic. I'm afraid those who think our denomination in its current state will be reformed are living in a dream world. This situation, in my opinion, is not going to get better. My hope is that what we are seeing in all of the outrage is much more than saber rattling. I, for one, am looking for more. I love the church I'm involved in now but my I cannot, in good conscience, remain in the PCUSA as it exists today. Furthermore I cannot wait 2 years to see if the next GA reverses the damage already done. I implore those leaders who are committed to the true Reformed faith to lead us onward irrespective of pension or property concerns. This is not about money or property. It's about being faithful to the Scriptures, the Gospel, our only true guide in this matter. W. E. McCutchen Kingstree, S.C. First order of business: Establish essential tenets July 27, 2006 I am neither a theologian nor an expert on church polity. I am just a simple (yes, even simple minded) Presbyterian who is confused and amused by the five organizations working for renewal of some sort for our beloved denomination. What would be wrong with forming a new Presbyterian denomination that accepts the current Book of Order (No A.I.'s !) and the current Book of Confessions without the Confession of 1967 (or at least paragraph 9.29)? Why do we need to re-create the wheel? I'll leave it to others to name this proposal/organization. Leave all the baggage of the current PCUSA behind. I would suggest, however, that the first order of business would be to establish essential tenets, which in the PCUSA, has been so sorely missing. We could start with what the San Diego Presbytery has already done. Gene Meyer, elder Omaha, Neb. Trinity task force should apologize to PCUSA July 27, 2006 When I read John Adams' interview with Charles Wiley, my thoughts were that Wiley was blaming others for not telling them of the obvious flaws in the document. Jim Berkley (letter to the editor, posted July 27, 2006) aptly points to the many instances where the task force was told of flaws. I hope Wiley and the Trinity task force would consider apologizing to the 2.3 million members of the PCUSA for their document that resulted in the mainstream media ridiculing and embarrassing us. I hope Wiley and the Trinity Task Force would consider issuing a statement to the 218th General Assembly that the Trinity report should be rejected. Larry Rued First Presbyterian Church Bradenton, Fla. New Wineskins has clearly fined what it believes July 27, 2006 W. Thomas Scandlyn (letter to the editor, posted July 25, 2006) is correct, "the last thing we need is a new, broad based, guasi-evangelical church that is not committed to the confessional heritage of the Reformed Faith." The New Wineskins Association of Churches (NWAC) is thoroughly evangelical and steadfastly "committed to the confessional heritage of the Reformed faith." This is borne out by the essential tenets and ethical imperatives that comprise the first two chapters of the NWAC's the-cement-is-still-wet constitution. The essential tenets are subscriptionist, must believe, bedrock affirmations of our common Reformed faith. The NWAC is as far removed from "a slightly evangelical version of a 'believe anything you want church'" as possible. NWAC has clearly defined what we believe. Any who are concerned about this may review the NWAC documents at newwineconvo.com. Structurally, the NWAC is not unlike the Willow Creek Association of Churches. Neither of these is a denomination. Neither serves as an ordaining body. Both are a college of like minded congregations, seeking to learn and grow together in Christ and to serve him alone as Lord of all. The NWAC is not a finished product; it is a joint pilgrimage. We aren't there yet, but we are on our way. On this journey, some may agree with Scandlyn that the NWAC refusal to add Presbyterian to the organization's name was a misstep. I can't tell you why others voted for this omission, but I can tell you my own reasoning. I am convinced that God may be calling up something bigger, greater, different than just another denomination. The NWAC may serve as welcome shelter to many congregations and individuals who share our Reformed faith, but not our Presbyterian polity. If we name our connectionalism with this grand old word, some may feel that our very name closes the door on their partnership and participation with us. I don't want to slam shut a door that is just now opening. I can live without the name Presbyterian for the sake of the name above all names: the Lord Jesus Christ. It is a very small sacrifice for him who gave his all for me. Even without the name, the NWAC is Presbyterian in its connectionalism. It promotes the formation of ministry networks (not unlike the clusters of congregations that many PCUSA presbyteries employ). It looks forward to the organization of support networks that carry much of the function of what we now know as presbyteries. Both of these, along with the national network, are geared toward strengthening the ministry and mission of congregations. The importance of local congregations is primary in the NWAC. Every local church session is given voice and vote at National Network Delegated Assemblies. Amendments to the constitution flow back to the sessions for approval or disapproval. This is different from the way we Presbyterians have "done-business" in the past; but look at the present confusion and crisis our past together has wrought. The NWAC celebrates grassroots, Presbyterian connectionalism that keeps crucial choices at the grass roots – in our local sessions. The NWAC has approved the appointment of a nine person strategy team that will "develop a transition plan and will make recommendations" from the inspection of "a wide range of options for action, which will include an examination of Biblical, spiritual, missional, congregational, strategic, legal considerations, and which could include the request for dismissal of a congregation from its presbytery." The "strategy team" will report first to the larger NWAC "leadership team" and then to a February 8-9, 2007, NWAC Convocation hosted by First Presbyterian Church, Orlando, Fla. I am committed to see this pilgrimage through to the end that God is glorified in Christ Jesus and in his body, the church. The NWAC is a serious effort to faithfully follow Christ into the 21st Century. Jim Henkel, NWAC endorsing church pastor North Benton Presbyterian Church North Benton, Ohio Eastminster Presbytery PCA: A denomination that cherishes God's Word without doubts July 27, 2006 Regarding Mr. Ironsides comments (letter to the editor, posted July 25, 2006), I left the PCUSA in the spring of 2003 for the PCA and find it to be a great blessing as I have shared several times in the last two years. In response to Larry Woods (letter to the editor, posted July 5, 2006), I continue to share comments and encourage others to leave because this "time warp" has sent me back to a denomination that cherishes God's Word without doubts and desire others to benefit from this blessing. I continue to watch and listen, and at times comment to this Web site regarding the PCUSA. I take seriously Paul's admonition from 2 Corinthians 6:14-15, "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common?" I also have found that since the last PCUSA General Assembly, numerous friends from several states e-mailing me and asking me questions and about joining the PCA or heartbroken and disgusted and planning to leave and asking for churches they could join in their area. I think to commit to stay within the PCUSA is utter moral foolishness. It is just like a frog in the kettle – as the heat is turned up the frog slowly dies – so to the pollution of the General Assembly slowly filters down into individual churches and strangles them – just as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:33, "Do not be misled: Bad company corrupts good character." Additionally, I have witnessed first hand, presbyteries coming in and dictating terms to a church in an extra-constitutional fashion in the last 15 years (once evicting a church from its property prior to the 1992 "escape clause") and believe it is just a matter of time before this begins again – although it does appear to have happened at Hollywood Presbyterian Church in California. I have even heard an executive presbyter speak to a church session and boldly make false statements regarding the Confessing Church movement. If this was occurring before the "big vote," why should we believe it will not only continue but grow in practice? All the saber-rattling of the renewal movements will be immaterial if they do not exercise reverse church discipline –1 Corinthians 5:13 "Expel the wicked man from among you;" if the leadership of the PCUSA will not follow through in loving discipline, then individual churches need to exercise discipline against the denomination. Andrew McCaskill Aiken, S.C. PCUSA needs to focus on the use of Scripture for our moral compass in life July 27, 2006 The Presbytery of Nevada submitted an overture to the 217th G.A. asking General Assemblies and advisory committees who submit national policy statements to use Scripture or statements from our Book of Confessions as part of their rationale in those policies. The overture submitted by Mississippi, although different, was about the same idea – getting our denomination to base our morality in Scripture. Not surprisingly, the constitution committee and the Social Witness Policy committee (the polity committee's "resource committees") rejected the idea of our overture, and so polity followed suit. The vote was 34-11-2. It wasn't close, but it did raise a few eyebrows! I started a committee two years ago to research the political involvement of our General Assemblies. Social justice has its place in instituting the will of God, but not on the basis of secular, political reasoning. Our view, as is Mississippi's apparently, that our church needs to focus on the use of Scripture for our moral compass in life. I and my committee still feel passionate about getting this point passed as a constitutional requirement. All communications up and down the communications ladder from General Assemblies need to be based on the word of God as the reason for taking on any social justice position. I don't care which side of a political argument you are on. If you can show God's will in your reasoning, then due consideration can then be given to the other social points that beckon. We need a conglomerate of presbyteries to write overtures for the 218th G.A. in San Jose and force polity to listen to this view. We need to change the "center of gravity" in the debates which take place on the plenary floor from politics to the Word of God as the Presbyterian basis for social points of view. Philip B. Keever, elder Mtn. View Presbyterian Church Las Vegas, Nev. Fidelity in relationships is more than the scope of marriage and human sexuality July 27, 2006 In my understanding, neither Mr. Adams' article nor Mr.Wilken's letter gives a true representation of the action or debate of the Presbytery of Western North Carolina on July 25, 2006. According to an overture of the Waynesville Presbyterian Church, the presbytery was asked to make "paragraph b" an essential tenet, not simply affirm the paragraph. Our General Assembly has affirmed "paragraph b" and since we made no effort to disagree with "paragraph b," I consider if affirmed by the presbytery. No other action is necessary. In accepting ordination, I myself and others have vowed to uphold the constitution. In being installed as a member of the Presbytery of Western North Carolina, I accepted the same vow once again as I should have done according to the constitution. In over three years of membership in the PWNC I have not seen one instance of my being asked to violate the constitution, including "paragraph b" that seems to give so much reason for anxiety. We are a well-behaved, constitutionally functioning body to my knowledge. The one exception of which I am aware is in the case of Parker Williamson, the PJC ruling against us. On the other hand, I myself, have been published on the records of the Presbytery of Western North Carolina, July 25, 2006, as being in violation of the constitution (Book of Order), and none of those who are so keenly interested in the constitution, mostly "paragraph b," have made the slightest squeak about my violation of the constitution. The terms of my call for 2006 have not been received and reviewed by the Committee on Ministry. In the case of the assertion that the PWNC would not accept a "constitutional document" presented us by "constitutional Presbyterians," I considered the document superfluous and out of order. It amounts to as much as a confession of faith, and our confessional documents throughout the history of the Church have been framed by councils and committees and synods and the like. We do not even know the true source of the exceedingly long document we were asked to affirm. Have you considered telling of the many fine missions and ministries in which the members of the Presbytery of Western North Carolina is engaged across the state and the world? Have you considered reporting that many of those who are so keenly interested in fidelity and chastity in marriage between a man and a woman do not seem to be so interested in fidelity to mission and ministry – the plenary assembly virtually emptied after the vote on the overtures in question. We heard a report on how a dying congregation had been brought back to life over seven years and is now a vibrant ministry, but only about 15 percent of the enrolled presbytery remained to hear that report and the prayer of adjournment. Fidelity in relationships involved more than the scope of marriage and human sexuality. Can anyone tell me if the "Constitutional Presbyterians" were faithful and present throughout the entire meeting of the PWNC? Yes, I left the July 25th meeting a little confused, but I did leave understanding that as I said on the floor of the meeting, we are trying to affirm that we "will not go off half cocked." What I understand is that no question of disagreement with the PCUSA constitution will be acted upon in the PWNC without coming to the whole floor. Please remember that to me truth telling is as important as the human sexuality question; and in this case what you report is not what I understand as reality. Archie Willis Gaines, D. Min., pastor West Ashville Presbyterian Church Presbytery of Western North Carolina God bless July 27, 2006 God bless you for standing firm! We are with Christ and with you. Rich Mueller Now a member of the Charismatic Episcopal Church (but formerly a member of ECUSA, before their great divorce) Anybody should have seen criticism of Trinity coming from miles away July 26, 2006 I was a little taken aback to read that Charles Wylie would say that there was little evangelical response to the draft of the Trinity paper prior to General Assembly. The fine and thorough critique by Gerrit Dawson ought to have been sufficient to produce a major rewrite. But what about the contention that there was no other response from evangelicals to the Huey, Dewey, and Louie theology of the paper? Just a quick look through web sites garners this batch of excellent and consistent advice that could have saved Wylie a lot of embarrassment if only it had been heeded by the Trinity drafting team: Viola Larson wrote on the Voices of Orthodox Women web site. Here's advice from PFR on the Trinity paper. The Rev. Dr. Rachel Stahle had a fine critique posted on the PFR web site for about 18 months, but it isn't accessible now, due to a web site conversion. Wylie had received a copy. Likewise, Mark Achtemeier had commented on the Trinity paper on the PFR site in response to Gerritt Dawson's critique. It, too, was lost only recently after the web site conversion. Jack Adams had a lot to say about the Trinity paper in a Layman article in March. Andrew Purves and Charles Partee wrote "A Name Is Not a Metaphor" for Theology Matters. Because of this wealth of wisdom about the Trinity paper – some of it coming quite early – most evangelicals felt there was little more that needed to be said. We were well aware that the paper had been thoroughly critiqued, and we were waiting to see substantive revisions. Instead, the final draft looked and smelled just like the first draft in almost every way. There was precious little reason for any surprise or dismay over the major criticism leveled at the Trinity paper at General Assembly and in the aftermath. Anybody ought to have seen it coming miles away – and Charles Wylie could probably have done something good to avert it. James D. Berkley Director of Presbyterian Action Bellevue, Wash. The overreaction to Trinity paper is the triumph of image over substance July 26, 2006 I am not writing to particularly defend or criticize the Trinity paper, but to illuminate a sound, orthodox, doctrinal issue that the paper was trying to address. As background, please remember that in many progressive congregations, concerns over patriarchal references to God led to the widespread use of "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer" as a nearly exclusive alternative to "Father, Son and Holy Spirit." The orthodox theological problem presented by "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer" is that these are purely functional terms, and their exclusive use could subtly reintroduce the modalist heresy (Sabellianism) into our thinking. Please note the following from the Trinity paper: "Against the views of modalism and subordinationism the church declares in its doctrine of the Trinity that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are, together with God the Father, fully and eternally God." I believe that too many of your readers are getting hung up on the words employed rather than paying closer attention to the parts of speech represented by those terms. Although "mother, child, womb" might not roll trippingly off the tongue for some, at least it is not a formulation that evokes modalism. The paper, among other things, attempted to address the serious, though subtle, theological problem of modalism in an inclusive way. I applaud the effort. In my opinion, the overreaction to the paper is the triumph of image over substance, emotion over reason, and politics over theology. Richard S. Hong Englewood, N.J. In Presbytery of Western N.C., 'Yes' can mean 'No,' and 'No' can mean 'Yes' July 26, 2006 Up until July 25, 2006 "PWNC" meant, the "Presbytery of Western North Carolina." But now it stands for the "Presbytery of Wonderland in North Carolina." Truly, the Mad Hatter himself could not come up with anything more illogical and absurd than the presbytery did at its meeting in Denver, N.C. How did this transformation take place? First the presbytery voted not to affirm G-6.0106b (the so-called "fidelity and chastity" standard). Then the presbytery voted not to affirm the constitution by rejecting the Theological Declaration of Constitutional Presbyterians. Next the presbytery did an amazing thing, it actually voted that it would not allow any exceptions to the ordination standards currently found in the Book of Order while its Committee on Ministry tries to figure out what to the with the new Authoritative Interpretation. Then, and here is the crazy part, the presbytery immediately voted to give itself permission to grant exceptions to the ordination standards on a case by case basis by vote of the presbytery. In other words, in the Presbytery of Wonderland in North Carolina "Yes" can now mean "No," and "No" can mean "Yes." When a minister member rose and pointed out this absurdity to the stated clerk, the clerk merely shrugged his shoulders and in effect said, "That's what you voted to do." Thus we see some of the "first fruits" of the PUP report, a presbytery that can't tell "up" from "down," "right" from "left," "yes" from "no." No doubt we can all look forward to more and more nonsense as presbytery after presbytery struggles to figure out what to do with this "gift" the General Assembly has given the church. Jim Wilken, pastor First Presbyterian Church Marion, N.C. A Constitutional Presbyterian Congregation Committed to leaving with Presbyterian tradition sewn into a new wineskin July 26, 2006 What a joy it was to hear from our pastor this week about the New Wineskins Convocation. Knowing that such a great number are finally speaking with the courage of Moses and the vision that Christ gave for the Church gives us renewed hope. We have been embarrassed and ashamed of our denominational leadership for far too long. How patient we have been and how much we had hoped for renewal. Certainly we regret that our leadership elevated tomato picking, hallucinogenic religious services and the amicus brief, abortion, milk and honey communions, goddesses, alternatives to salvation through Jesus, gay ordination, the plight of terrorist organizations, the need to return Elian Gonzales to the workers' paradise, general disagreement with the Bush administration, prayers to Allah and Buddha, and anti-Semitism to a level of fervor usually reserved for expressions of faith in Christ alone. Would that they had reserved it all for Christ alone. But, apart from the disgust many still surely feel for Louisville's squandered opportunities to actually shepherd what was once a mulit-million member flock, I am quite happy knowing there are others committed to actually leaving with a whole Presbyterian tradition soon to be sewn into a new wineskin. I can read what they are saying in Louisville and it just doesn't matter very much anymore. That's good. That's very good. The New Wineskins must do what God gives their hands to accomplish. Don't look back. Jack O'Brien Pittsburgh, Pa. New Wineskins needs clear communication July 26, 2006 After experiencing the comprehensive coverage of the GA in June, I must say I am disappointed by the coverage of the New Wineskins meeting in Tulsa. I'd been hoping to see a day-by-day journal of presentations and discussions but have found only bits and pieces. The opening page of the New Wineskins Web site may be a summation of the road forward that resulted from the meeting but it is not identified as such, and still is not a reflection of the meeting activities. I thought that maybe I just missed something or am not wise enough to clearly understand what the coverage said. However, in looking at some of the July 25 Layman letters, I'm beginning to think I'm not alone. Comments such as those by W. Thomas Scandlyn, asking "Where is the commitment to the Westminster Standards or any other historic creed of the church?" and many others that I won't take the space to repeat, suggests that the New Wineskins has a lot of work cut out for itself in improving communications. While some comments, such as the one cited, suggest the authors have not looked at the Wineskins Web site, others reflect the kind of confusion that results from a lack of clear communication from the organization itself. Those present at the Tulsa meeting may fully understand and appreciate the results of the meeting, but please also understand that there are a vast number of people who are unable to attend such meetings that are desperately trying to understand and follow this movement. If you are having a problem communicating with your adherents now, wait a while. In the future, communication will only grow more difficult as some folks intentionally try to cause confusion as a means of countering the movement. May God bless your efforts. Col. Ronald Everett, AUS-Ret North Olmsted, Ohio 2006 GA represented the problem. Come and be part of the solution July 26, 2006 I am grateful for John Adams' article about the recent New Wineskins meeting in Tulsa, and for his references to "Constitutional Presbyterians," of which I am one. In this period of Presbyterian chaos, it is a challenge for any reporter to keep fully up-to-date on what is transpiring, and I would like to add to what Mr. Adams has reported about the group known as Constitutional Presbyterians. The Constitutional Presbyterians group is a core group of less than 100 pastors and laypeople who have called the Presbyterian Church (USA) to reformation. We are working to actually be what our confessions and our Form of Government call on all Presbyterians in our denomination to be, and we hope that our efforts may be blessed by God, and may prevail, in order to save the Presbyterian Church from itself, and from the tragic situation into which it has now brought itself. Our work, thus far, has been endorsed by a vast array of Presbyterians, and by a sizeable group of sessions, who have signed on the appeal, which we published on March 31, 2006, and who, in addition have begun to respond to our declaration, which calls Presbyterians back to theological purity and constitutional government. Following in the steps of John Calvin and Martin Luther, we are seeking a reformation in our beloved denomination, to return it to the faith it once had, and to the constitutional government it once honored. Right from the beginning, it has been our hope, and our fervent desire that the Presbyterian Church (USA) might be reformed by the grace and the power of God for there is no question but that it has allowed itself to be overtaken by cultural values that are not Biblical in their foundation, and by political process that is neither Christian nor constitutional. We are in conversations with the other groups who also are seeking Reformation of our Church, (Confessing Church Movement, Presbyterian Global Fellowship, New Wineskins, Presbyterian Forum, Presbyterians For Renewal, etc.), and we believe that the hand of God is in this effort for reformation that all of our groups are working on. We hope that, in the various presbyteries across the land, the various reforming groups and individuals may be able, presbytery by presbytery, to bring about this reformation. At the same time, we are deeply aware of many individuals, sessions and pastors, as well as many of their members, who are so deeply distressed and alienated by the action of the most recent General Assembly that they may seek to leave the denomination as quickly as they can. Nor can we ignore the fact that already some presbyteries have initiated action to prevent faithful Presbyterians and congregations and ministers from seeking faithful solution to their dilemma, a tragedy which has been forced upon them by a faithless denomination. So part of our effort is to provide nurture and support to such individuals and congregations during this interim period or renewal. Whether or not the leaders of our denomination are open to renewal and reformation is, however, another question, and thus, the ultimate outcome is not sure. Whether current denominational leadership will be open to and will support reformation, or whether they will do all that they can to stamp it out, as did the leadership of the established church 500 years ago, is a matter that is in God's hands. But we shall persevere in the work of reformation because, as God is our witness, we can do no other; and we shall go where God leads us. So we encourage all Presbyterians to take part in one or more of these reforming groups, and we invite all interested Presbyterians to come to Pittsburgh for a three-day conference, which we are hosting together with the Confessing Church Movement, September 28-30. The General Assembly in Birmingham represented the problem. Come and be part of the solution. Stephen A. Moss, Honorably Retired Salisbury, N.C. Those who truly believe in the Trinity know its meaning July 26, 2006 The Layman reports that Charles Wiley, "a member of the staff of the denomination's Office of Theology and Worship ... says he is both distressed and embarrassed by the response to the paper." No one really understood the purpose of the paper, Wiley said especially evangelicals. But wait, there's more. Wiley said, "he and other members of the staff of the Office of Theology and Worship will try to make the paper more understandable. They plan to prepare study documents to explain its intention, he said." Is this is priority? Suppose the project is left unfinished. Will anybody really miss it? Don't we pretty much have a conclusive consensus on the meaning of the Trinity? I mean those in the denomination who truly believe in the Trinity. The embarrassment is that the project is still considered active by Charles Wiley. Rev. Philip Pettus San Gabriel, Calif. Thanks for the endorsement of OPC and PCA July 26, 2006 I'd like to thank Ken Ironsides for his gracious endorsement of the OPC and PCA. (Movement to OPC or PCA would give a sense of entering a time warp, 7-25-06) I hope many of the NWI folks who think they need another denomination are reading this. Robert Demarest Cuminale Deacon, PCA It is Biblical to use Father, Son and the Holy Spirit July 26, 2006 To even suggest replacing Father, Son and the Holy Spirit with mother, child and womb is insane, and those suggesting this change are mad. Only in the PCUSA can we see a circus that has been going on since 1929. The PCUSA is at Kadish Barnea going around the mountain, accomplishing nothing, and, at the same time, dying, as was the case in Moses' time, with disobedience leading the way, and those 20 years and younger would only be permitted into the promised land. The rest died in their sin after 40 years, and this is happening before our eyes today, the dying of the PCUSA. It must incense and infuriate those who reject the words, Father and Son, and it seems they are from their father the devil, suggesting such a change, since the devil and his angels hate God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is Biblical to use Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, and any change to the same will cause one to be cursed. Lou. S. Nowasielski Wilmington, Del. No need for a quasi-evangelical church that is not committed to Reformed faith July 25, 2006 I completely affirm the need for the Confessing Church Movement and I understand the underlying need for the New Wineskins movement. However, as I see some of this unfold, I have some serious reservations about the form that the New Wineskins movement is taking. First and foremost, the last thing we need is a new broad based quasi-evangelical church that is not committed to the confessional heritage of the Reformed faith. The decision to leave the word Presbyterian out of the title is unsettling. What immediately comes to my mind is the Willow Creek Association of Churches. While I do not doubt the sincerity of those at Willow Creek and like-minded fellowships, I really doubt that any of the church fathers in the Reformed tradition would consider Willow Creek to be a church. If this is what New Wineskins wants to be, it should stop where it is. Where is the commitment to the Westminster Standards or any other historic creed of the church? Or is this just a slightly evangelical version of a "believe anything you want church" like the PCUSA has become? These questions need to be answered. I fail to see the need for a new church. There are a number of excellent Reformed churches with doctrinal standards and structure already in place. These range from the moderately conservative to the ultra-conservative. Those churches that wish to leave the PCUSA should seek refuge in one of them rather than start a new one. The persons defining the New Wineskins Movement need to clearly define what the believe before asking the rest of us to jump on board. The last thing we need is something that appears warm and fuzzy but in reality has no substance ... just as deplorable as we already have just not so full blown. W. Thomas Scandlyn Harriman, Tenn. Wiley does not stand with majority who hold to the doctrine of Nicene Creed July 25, 2006 Charles Wiley stated, "I am happy to stand with Nicea," he said. "This paper stands with Nicea." Who is he really trying to impress or fool? They would have thrown him bodily right out of the council room at Nicea. If he means that his paper stands with the minority who believed that Arius' new interpretation of the faith was correct, then I do agree that his paper stand with Nicea – in other words, he stands with the minority crowd who are in error! But in truth, he does not stand with the great majority who hold to the doctrine expressed by the Nicene Creed – Father, Son, and Spirit as names for God. I've got a great idea for another take on the Trinity – appoint a lay group to compose a paper – they couldn't do worse! Todd Bensel Bible uses metaphors for God, but none are used in a Trinitarian way July 25, 2006 Your July 25th article on the Trinity paper writes, "Wiley insists that triad – and the others – were not intended to be used as Trinitarian alternatives to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He accepts blame for some fuzzy writing that made them seem that way." Regardless of Wiley's intent, or that of the whole team for that matter, it has been interpreted, and applied, that way, and more than likely will continue to be so interpreted and applied. As an attendee of GA 2006, on the day before GA adjourned, I witnessed a person on the floor of the plenary session conclude some personal remarks she made on behalf of herself and others using the purported Trinitarian alternative, "In the name of the Mother, Child, and Life-giving Womb." I knew the paper had been "received" but had no idea I would see it implemented so soon. But in retrospect, it should have been no surprise. What were they thinking? While it is true the Bible uses a number of different metaphors for God, none of them is used in a Trinitarian way. To take the different metaphors and insert them in the formula and use them as names for God seems to be humanistic, and indeed heretical. They are not God-revealed, that is according to the written Word, the true test of Reformed theology. No wonder much of Christendom looks at us Presbyterians as if we have three eyes. Rev. Steven L. Seng First Presbyterian Church Wellsburg, W.Va. How many gays and lesbians have used Norman's words? July 25, 2006 I continue to shake my head, and say "How ironic." In the recent article titled "New Wineskins Association calls for a 'moratorium' on acts of discipline and coercion," elder Forrest Norman is quoted as saying, "This is a time of profound discernment. We have entered a period that is not of our own choosing. Christian ministers and elders must struggle with their consciences in the light of the General Assembly's decisions. The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) recognizes and protects acts of conscience, declaring that God alone is 'the Lord of conscience.' All we are asking is that denominational leaders recognize our constitutional prerogative to engage in a conscientious struggle whether we can live with what our highest legislative body has done, and that they not punish us for doing what the constitution clearly gives us warrant to do." I wonder how many on the far left on the issue of ordaining practicing gays and lesbians have thought or uttered those very words, or words like it, in the past several years. Perhaps the far right and far left are more similar than different after all. Rev. Bart Roush Geneva, Ill. Tulsa brought home the suffering of those living under ecclesiastical tyrants July 25, 2006 Less then two weeks ago, I stood in Luther's pulpit in Wittenberg. I heard him say those words of earlier days, "Must we forever only discuss about the Word of God?" I have also just returned from the Wineskin's convocation in Tulsa, Okla. Though weary from all the travel, I am filled with both joy and a holy rage. Since this is no contradiction, I am also celebrating peace. It is the peace that only the Prince of Peace, Jesus, can bring to the human heart. I am filled with joy from worshiping and meeting brothers and sisters who know and love Jesus. I am excited by the unity in the Holy Spirit that we experienced in our decision-making processes. I am confident that we, in the days and years ahead, will have "form following function" as we desire to be that new vessel into which the Holy Spirit will pour his power, so that the thirsty may drink living waters. I have read briefly comments made by the new moderator of the PCUSA. She spoke of churches opening food pantries for the poor – undoubtedly wonderful and important work. We (Millbrook) too are very active in such labors. Yet also the federal government has such programs, so what is the difference? The difference is Jesus. We are motivated by the love of Jesus and a desire to obey his Word. We marvel that, "While we were yet sinners Christ died for us." Luther reminds us that the true treasure of the church is the marvelous gospel of God in Christ Jesus. Indeed, we should sing, "In Christ alone I stand, all other ground is sinking sand." With so much joy and gratitude, why the "holy rage?" As a pastor, I have never in my life felt so betrayed as by many of those who hold leadership positions in the PCUSA. I am referring to the continuing ambiguities expressed regarding the PUP report from such people as Cliff Kirkpatrick as well as many regional leaders in presbyteries and synods. Perhaps most of all, I am dismayed by those who claim to be "evangelical" and supposedly represent me and others like me. Do we really think that the GAPJC will reverse a ruling from the GA? The homosexual ordinations and the rejection of Biblical revelation are views that are so entrenched that they will not change, no matter how loud and often their advocates sing, "Lift high the Cross." This deluded and diluted spirituality is evident to those who have seen the demons dance around their adherents. Yet, the issue goes much deeper. Tulsa brought home to me the hurt and suffering of brothers and sisters who live under the tyrannical yokes of unregenerated ecclesiastical tyrants. It is enough! How many are aware of the intimidations, isolation and devious legal maneuvers that come from these "jars of clay" that appear to retain no glory? We follow the God of the Exodus. It is he who used the blood of a lamb to put his mark on his people and led them out of Egypt with the spoils of the pagans. That same God, who is the same yesterday, today, and forever, reminds us not to live in fear. For the Church lives under the power of the blood of the Lamb of God. The Lion of Judah visited the Tulsa meeting. He was silent, for he was pleased! He celebrated the peace, the unity and the purity of those who said each morning, "Lord, by your Spirit, may I live under the Lordship of Jesus the Christ, in obedience to your Word, this day." Silence is but one language God uses. He also communicated by other means. He showed us the structure over which the cloud of his presence resided. It is the New Wineskins Association of Churches that with one voice affirm, Christ is all. And God' people said AMEN. I urge my fellow Presbyterian brothers and sisters, who are in one Lord, one faith, one baptism, by the grace and power of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, to join us under the cover of the El Shaddai of Israel. Jerry J. Voss Millbrook Presbyterian Church Fresno, Calif. New Wineskins: Don't fail to hear the still small voice July 25, 2006 I would like to challenge the New Wineskin churches to a serious time of prayer, listening and discerning what God would have us do. It is crucial to not move ahead of the Lord, but see what he is doing and join his mighty work. I am afraid that we get our emotions very wrapped up in our decisions and fail to hear the still small voice. I say that because I was at this line of demarcation one year ago. I was within a very short time of separating from the PCUSA. My time of waiting and listening in a new Foursquare church was helpful, but within nine months the Lord sent me back for such a time as this. Now my calling is to pray for the pastors of our presbytery and all of our discernment meetings. I am certain that God would have all of us on our knees, surrendering all to his plan and his will. Rev. Sandy Bowen San Diego Presbytery Conservatives: The oaths they swore to uphold no longer need to be observed July 25, 2006 A moratorium on discipline? A refusal to return property held in trust? For a movement that has often justified its ecclesiological positions on the basis of appeals to constitutionality, conservative Presbyterianism is now sounding as though the oaths it swore to uphold polity no longer need to be observed (which would seem to render the Ninth Commandment "optional" as well). The argument that the national church's actions have somehow liberated conservative congregations from adhering to their connectional and covenantal obligations is not an original one. In fact it puts them in interesting historical company: During the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church freed all its members from the obligation to fulfill any promises or oaths made to heretics – e.g., Protestants. Ecclesiastes was right; there really is nothing new under the sun. Christine Kooi Baton Rouge, La. Be careful with rhetoric so that the message is obedience to Christ July 25, 2006 I am and have been disappointed in the Church at large, not just our own denomination, in its straying from the principles and teaching of the apostles to serve our own intellectual and self-gratifying pleasures which are pushed on us by culture. We sometimes think that we have the corner on problems and that the early Church was just too naive. All I can say is tell that to Paul when he walked into Ephesus, Corinth or Thessalonica. We, too, often think that we know better than the early church and those who lived and walked with Christ while he was here on earth among us. We are, and I include myself, so full of hubris to think that we might know better than they. In light of all the problems we need to ask "How then shall we live?" Are we thinking about separation with tears and sorrow along with much humility or are we doing this with hubris and self-righteous anger ? How we do something can be more of a witness than what we do. We do need to be careful with our rhetoric so that the message is obedience to Christ not knee jerk reactions to culture. Mike Naegele Surround Gagnon with supportive peers July 25, 2006 Dr. Robert Gagnon needs the support of other Presbyterian academic theologians. Don't allow him to be isolated and targeted for vilification. That would be strategic disaster for Presbyterian Reformation. It's time to surround him with supportive peers. Now is the moment for other voices within the academe to speak up and stand up alongside. Consider the ethical and moral alternative! Gary Starkey Yakima, Wash. Can churches also exempt themselves from property provision? July 25, 2006 I have not followed the details of the recent position adopted by the PCUSA, which allows presbyteries to exempt themselves from constitutional requirements that would prohibit the sexually immoral from being ordained. I wonder if the same permission extends to churches to exempt themselves of the constitutional provisions which prohibit churches from taking their property out of the denomination. Seems to me that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Mark Ross

July 2006 letters, page 2 Home · News · PLC Publications · The Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links