 |
|
| October
2006 letters Archives of letters to the editor  |
|
| A
common-sense opinion on church property October 31, 2006 This is not a legal opinion because I am not a lawyer. I hope it is a common-sense opinion because I am a common man. The issue of property in the Presbyterian Church is simpler than we think and both sides are missing the point, which has little to do with church polity. It is actually surprising how much we agree on. Church property is held in trust. The session, or in some jurisdictions a board of trustees, acts as trustees of the property and assets of the congregation. The courts should be appealed to only under exceptional circumstances and are then bound by neutral principles of law. All that is fairly clear but the matter is soon clouded by disagreement over legal principles and church polity. Basic trust law is fairly straightforward. For instance anyone who writes a will creates a trust. The executor is the trustee, and the beneficiaries are listed within the will. The trustee has no right to any of the assets of the estate but is charged with distributing them according to the instructions of the creator of the trust. The key is that the person giving the assets determines who the beneficiary is to be. In the case of churches it is those who donate to the church who decide on the beneficiary of that trust without regard to any questions of polity. If this theory is correct then even knowledge of the "trust clause' would be irrelevant unless it could be shown that the donor endorsed it. Lest you think that it is heresy for a Presbyterian minister to espouse this principle let me assure you that this is, in fact, the way in which the church currently operates. Reversionary clauses are not uncommon. Property is given to a congregation with the provision that if the church ceases to exist the property will revert to the original owners or their heirs. In these cases the instructions of the donors trump the Book of Order every time. There are also much less formal examples of such instructions. If a donor writes "Cemetery Fund" on a check placed in the offering, it designates the funds for the care of the cemetery and neither the Session nor any other court of the church can use the funds for any other purpose. Those facts leave us with a relatively simple question: Did the donors to a particular church intend the beneficiary to be the congregation or the denomination. That is the question the courts should be deciding and it isn't that difficult. If the denomination is the beneficiary then it can only benefit financially. There may be some intangible benefits given the religious nature of the organization, but those are beyond neutral principles of law, and these cases are about property and money. Even a small church in these days might be worth almost a million dollars, and that church might remit five thousand dollars to the denomination each year in per capita and other giving. From a financial point of view that is a return of only half a percent on investment. If the denomination is the beneficiary of the trust the session would be legally and morally bound to sell the church property and turn the proceeds over to the denomination where almost any investment would earn a far greater return. It is absurd to claim that the donors who gave of their time and money to build up a local congregation actually intended the denomination as beneficiary. If there is any doubt about their intentions remember that members of the church have always had a way to make the denomination their beneficiary through giving directly to denominational causes. It seems clear to me that those who have donated money to congregations through the years have intended those congregations as the beneficiaries. No matter what decisions the congregation makes concerning participation in, or affiliation with, any denomination the trustees are bound to use the assets under their control to benefit the congregation, and that duty transcends any polity. The Presbyterian Church controls its own governance of course, and that is beyond the reach of the courts but the use of the assets of the congregation is in the hands of its trustees who are responsible to donors and not polity. This opinion would probably be torn to shreds by lawyers, but we are all used to them telling us that black is white and that we are too ignorant to understand the reasons. Louisville would also reject it out of hand but those of us in small churches have long ago given up the hope of having Louisville respect our opinions. In spite of that I can tell you that this is the way that most small churches, and many not so small churches, see the issue. You can only express contempt for your donors for so long. Even if Louisville has the legal right to mistreat its members, in the end people will not continue to fund an organization that patronizes them. The division within our denomination is very sad but if our stated clerk thinks his actions are going to inspire congregations to remain within the denomination out of love and trust I will have to respectfully disagree with his opinion. That much I can do even if I am no lawyer and cannot afford one. It disturbs me that some court might mistakenly believe that Louisville's amicus curiae briefs speak for me. Rev. Thomas Gilliland Maryville, Tennessee Anagrams sum up state of affairs in PCUSA October 31, 2006 Here are two Halloween anagrams that sum up our current state of affairs. 1. The membership PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, USA CHIRPY BUREAUCRATS; HENS 2. The leadership CLIFTON KIRKPATRICK I TRICK RAPT KIN-FLOCK. Mark Miner Churches try to steal property from PCUSA October 31, 2006 Save your crocodile tears about GA advice on property You insist the stated clerk uphold the constitution to the letter when it is your favorite issue, yet insist they do nothing when churches violate it by planning to walk away with their property and pastors' violate their ordination vows by facilitating it. Many church groups are strategizing how to steal church property from the denomination and offering detailed legal advice. Why wouldn't our General Assembly staff be advising presbyteries on how to maintain order and uphold what we believe. Steven E. Wirth, pastor Grace First Presbyterian Church Long Beach, Calif. There is nothing in the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church that requires a presbytery to seize the control of the property of a church leaving the denomination. The presbytery has the option of dissolving the congregation and allowing it to leave with its property. The editors PCUSA warning signs began years ago October 31, 2006 In my opinion, The Layman is correct on these issues that we face. The general staff is leading us in the wrong path. I see them as too much like a corporation and a lawyer-type outfit. In the July 2006 edition, there was a letter from Black Mountain, N.C., in which the writer claimed we are feeding dissension. Although I think he is on the other side of these issues. Years ago, when we got into close working arrangements with the liberal branch of the United Church of Christ, it seemed a warning that we were headed for trouble. Three or four years ago, I was a commissioner to the Presbytery of Northern Waters, representing the James Presbytery from Tower, Minn. The majority of the issues passed by an 11-vote margin on the liberal side. As a pessimist, it seems to me they will get it through in some presbyteries and we will be told, "Live with it." Let us pray this will be stopped, but it is hard when the General Assembly votes so nutty as to run around our constitution. Ray J. Peil Mountain Iron, Minn. Anything coming from Louisville is suspect October 31, 2006 I hope that Keith M. Wulf, coordinator of Research Services for the PCUSA, understands that few of us believe that the stated clerk is not asking for the financial information on the stated clerk's annual survey of session clerks. It is because of the heavy-handed, draconian tactics from the stated clerk's office that anything coming from Louisville is suspect. That office claimed to have no power or even warrant to enforce the PCUSA Constitution, yet it drew up and is executing plans to punish ministers, dismiss sessions, extort money from congregations and take congregational property if the congregation even discusses leaving this institution. James Logan Jesus, not Mohammed, is the true prophet October 31, 2006 Upon reading about the Kirk of the Hills in Tulsa and Tom Gray's plight, I had a blessed thought come to mind, which goes this way: "I'm beginning to see the 'Church' (Presbyterian) coming back to the Bible, God's Word." Amos 3:3, "Can two walk together except they be agreed?" Second Corinthians 6:17, "Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." I understand the struggle. It's why it took me so long to depart. The straw that broke the camel's back for me was when serving as a lay pastor I preached a sermon on the qualifications for a true prophet, and that Jesus our Lord fulfilled this office because he was not only the Truth, but all he said was truth and would/will come to pass. After the service, my wife and I were accosted and questioned with indignation as to whether we had ever read the Koran. "Why are you to say who is lost or saved, etc.?" The man who questioned me seemed to resent Jesus as prophet in opposition to Mohammed. He said he and his Muslim friends had been discussing it. It was very unpleasant. Well, I'm out of the Presbyterian Church now, as of Dec. 2, 2005. Guess I'm no longer an elder or lay preacher. My only "rightful" title is wretch, sinner, saint. Praise the Lord. His grace is amazing. Glenn Frank Antlers, Okla. Extend presumption of honesty to others October 31, 2006 In his letter, published on Oct. 27, the Rev. Thomas Warren makes a number of unsubstantiated claims about the Presbytery of Baltimore including: "When asked to 'receive and adopt the confessions,' at ordination, they lie." Earlier in his letter he identified himself as one of those "who actually believe that the confessions (except '67) really do reflect God's will for believers in Christ." Does he not believe that the Confession of 1967 reflects God's will? If not, how did he handle the question when he was asked to receive and adopt the confessions? I do not presume that he lied. Rather, I presume that the examining body took their responsibility seriously, examined him carefully, and decided that he was fit for ordination. I would hope that he would extend the same presumption to others. James D. Schroll Pasadena, Md. One of the purposes of PUP was to create an ambiguity in church law October 27, 2006 Affirming the constitution of the Presbyterian Church might make you feel better. Wow! 20-something presbyteries have pounded their fists on the table. THUD! It could give you a sense of moral superiority to say "We, really believe our standards and our confessions! Yeah!" Bring out the Cheerleaders! Ra Ra Ra! But it won't change anything. One of the purposes of PUP was to create an ambiguity in church law, so that people who wanted to thump their fists about fidelity and chastity could have their say, then they go home and say, "Not in my presbytery!" Your thumping means absolutely nothing to the greater church. Those presbyteries and sessions that want to open the door to gays and lesbians, to adulterers and fornicators, are quietly doing so. Oh, but they are not pounding the table, or printing their actions in The Layman. They are using the PUP as their shield, and they are continuing to do what they have been doing in the church since the 1970s – they do whatever they want, minus the cheer-leaders. Our churchwide policy is clear: Ordained leadership in the PCUSA only has to "comply" with what the local presbytery or session thinks is important. Nothing more. Nothing less. What has been lost nationally, covenantally, is that PCUSA leaders no longer have to actually believe anything. What does your faith have in common with an elder in Baltimore who lives in a committed gay relationship? What does your faith have in common with a pastor who speaks of the Trinity but forgets to even talk about Jesus? The new Presbyterianism is about compliance with the laws of men, not submission to the Word of God and confessions that reflect the teaching of the Word. There are 2 churches in the PCUSA – one Biblical and historic (the Thumpers) and a very different deconstructionist church that is ruled by postmodern ideation, where definitions are what you need them to be. You can say one thing, and do another in your "faith." The national church doesn't care two wits that you've pounded the table and thumped your faith. Go for it! If that keeps you happy! To be a Presbyterian leader, just comply with the governing body, but that is not to say you must actually, in your heart, "believe" the confessions. Therein lies the conflict: Those of us in the church who subscribe to the confessions of our church – who actually believe that the confessions (except "67") really do reflect God's will for believers in Christ – in what we believe about God and how we should act in our moral choices – we can't institute discipline against anyone because their theology is non-Reformed (the church welcomes defection from our standards as long as the leader is "compliant"); nor because they propound ethics that are non-Christian (it is not views but actions that are actionable), members of presbytery can be active in the Covenant Network with the protection of church law – no charges filed there. The only cases that can be processed are open, egregious moral failures where an activist was stupid enough to be noncompliant with their governing body. In Central Florida, we would deal swiftly with an openly gay minister. Not so much the case in Baltimore. As long as leaders are compliant with what the local presbytery (not the confessions, and not the Book of Order) says, there is no conflict. Some presbyteries and sessions will require leaders to be compliant with fidelity and chastity. But the PUP specifically says (Read it!), that governing bodies may hold that some portions of G-6.0108 and G-6.0106b can be scrupled, exempted as requirements for leaders. In Baltimore they aren't so much "into" fidelity and chastity, as we are in Central Florida. In Baltimore, they could be sleeping around, doing what they want with a gay lover, and still show up in church on Sunday and lead in worship, and sit as a session member. When the creeds are recited, they can lie about the "believing" (wink, wink) in the virgin birth. When asked to "receive and adopt the confessions," at ordination, they lie. Because affirming the constitution means nothing to some of them in this "words-don't-mean-anything" age. And evangelicals can't do anything about what they do in Baltimore. Nothing! Oh, in Florida, in Mississippi, or So. California we can thump on the table and do exactly what the PUP framers hoped we'd do. It is time for the church to grant relief to those of us whose consciences are crushed by the failure of the church to actually believe our confessions. It is that covenant that has been broken. We must be given relief from this oppression of our consciences by those who have changed our covenant from heart-felt belief in confessions and God's Word, to ambiguous, deconstructionistic compliance with local rules. All that the PUP did was wrap my conscience around the sins of people in Baltimore. Before PUP they were just accountable to God for their lapses. Now, they are getting it on me. The PUP is "binding on all lower governing bodies." Words do have meaning. Thomas Warren, pastor Deltona Presbyterian Church Deltona, Fla. Research Services was responsible for developing the questionnaire October 27, 2006 I am writing to you to clarify information in the recent Layman article, "Stated clerk to seek financial information from clerks of sessions." We in Research Services are responsible for developing the questions referred to in that article-not the Stated Clerk. While Research Services is responsible for the questions, we do develop this form as a service to all entities of the denomination. Frequent users over the years have been the Presbyterian Church Foundation, Presbyterian Investment & Loan Program, and General Assembly Council agencies and programs. We compile the results and share our findings both with individual entities that asked to have questions on the form and with the larger denomination. Our Web site shows the topics and results from each questionnaire going back to 1993. I have worked for Research Services since 1982, and in this period of time I do not think a stated clerk has ever asked to see the data or ever referred to this information. Many of the financial questions that are mentioned in the article have been asked for a number of years. Until a few years ago (before congregations were able to answer on the Web), completed surveys first went to the presbytery and then to us. Now if a congregation answers on the Web, the information comes directly to us. If a presbytery requests it, we send to them the data that their congregations sent directly to us. This form has had many names over the years. Currently it is the clerk's annual questionnaire, but I refer to as the supplemental form to the clerk of session's end of year report. The word "clerk" in the title refers to clerks of session, rather than to the stated clerk. This supplemental form has been used in the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. at least since the late 1960s. The types of questions have changed over the years. Sometimes the General Assembly requires that we ask a certain question. The questions about guest speakers are one example. This questionnaire provides a unique way to learn more about our congregations-information that is helpful to PCUSA entities, to others interested in understanding what is happening across the church, and to individual congregations. The Layman article mentioned that these questions do not focus on the great ends of the church. Yet last year's form did. From those questions, we learned that just 39 percent of congregations report having goals or objectives for church growth. (2005 results have not yet been posted on our Web site.) Keith M. Wulff Coordinator, Research Services Presbyterian Church (USA) Questionnaire also interested in social programs of the congregation October 27, 2006 It looks like the questionnaire is as much interested in seeing what kind of social programs the churches are involved in:
Michael Zorn Santa Ana, Calif. Questionnaire not aimed at congregations considering leaving PCUSA October 27, 2006 The article by John Adams about the stated clerk seeking additional financial information from clerks of session is misleading and indicates a lack of knowledge about statistical forms sent to clerks. If his information came from Jim Berkley, this also indicates his lack of knowledge about the statistical reports from previous years and a rush to further escalate the dispute over property. The financial questions on the questionnaire have been there in previous years. They were placed there in order to gain information for the Presbyterian Investment and Loan Program and the Presbyterian Foundation as a way to offer their services to congregations. The only questions on that document that are new are related to investment criteria. The documents are not aimed at congregations considering leaving the denomination and hoping to retain their property and assets, as falsely claimed in the article. Mary Ellen Lawson Clerk of Session Westminster Presbyterian Church Greensburg, Pa. 'Yellow journalism' seems to work October 27, 2006 I found it most interesting that the article by Parker Williamson "God Bless the Kirk" was printed on a yellow background. Whatever the purpose, it served to reveal the true nature of such an article as "yellow journalism." These are some of the phrases that show the author's true color: cultural compromise; end in apostasy; compromise; promoting the agenda; blatant defiance; apostasy is intractable; Theological estrangement; will not obey God's Word; they could not be trusted; heavy-handed assaults; gifts spent on lesser lords. All of these and more pejorative terms for the denomination, and nothing but praise for the Kirk. No wonder Mr. Williamson is smiling, the agenda of The Layman is being fulfilled in the action of the Kirk, and "yellow journalism" seems to work (even though it is unethical). R. Shipley Solon, Ohio Tell stated clerk: 'None of your business' October 27, 2006 I would tell Cliff, knowing our finances is, "None of your business." Seems like the PCUSA is becoming strapped for money wanting to know the affairs of PCUSA churches. Is Cliff and his lefties beginning to see the handwriting on the wall? With war and terror worldwide, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is needed more than ever, and is Cliff concentrating on obeying the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20? I guess not. What is more important to Cliff is other people's money. Lou. S. Nowasielski Wilmington, Del. Article is disingenuous and misleading October 27, 2006 I am a member of a New Wineskins supporting church and an avid reader of The Layman Online. I appreciate The Layman as a credible source of information regarding our denomination. However, I must agree with others that John Adam's article "Stated clerk to seek financial information from clerks of sessions" is disingenuous and misleading at best. This financial report is nothing new, it is submitted every year. That doesn't justify the request for the information by the Stated Clerk but it has been asked for annually for a while. When a reporter uses even one column to intentionally mislead, it calls into question the totality of his work. John should know better, and should apologize to the readers of The Layman and set the record straight. Bob Harmon Document below might meet the intent of I Corinthians 5:9-13 October 27, 2006 The following has had no legal approval and any organization thinking of developing something similar should consult proper counsel before proceeding. I have been reluctant to forward this to others through The Layman Online because I am sure the idea will be vigorously challenged. However, based on several recent Layman Online letters to the editor, the concept shown in this "document" might be of some use if prayerfully considered. I must clearly state I am no longer associated with the PCUSA, but the document below was initially developed while I was. And, certainly, I do not speak for any particular church or person or persons now associated with the PCUSA in this area of Wisconsin or anywhere else for that matter. I am not an attorney, nor have I had any training in law, but I have carefully thought this through and believe this approach might meet the intent of I Corinthians 5:9-13 where we are told to "purge" (or, at least, "separate ourselves" from) those who refuse to acknowledge the evil in which they are indulging "as seems right in their own eyes." It seems appropriate to me to consider the source of this advice (the Word of God) to have precedent over any man-created document(s) of the PCUSA. Might be interesting to be in Louisville on a day when 875 such letters reach the denomination's kingdom castle!
Sheboygan County, Wisc. Presbytery should obey constitution and sell congregation the property for $1 October 26, 2006 While it may be time for a GA to reconsider the wisdom of the property clause as a way to enforce covenantal unity, perhaps Mississippi Presbytery should comply with the clause and offer to sell the property of a withdrawing congregation for the price of $1 to the newly reformed congregation. This will save a whole lot of time, money and energy in the long run. And with an affordable property policy in place, perhaps the conversations in that presbytery (or any other presbytery that acts similarly) can focus on the need to be covenantally missional with one another regardless of where the institutional boundaries of the PCUSA end for any particular congregation. In the Apostles' Creed we profess to believe in the holy catholic church. Therefore, "who we are to one another" can be maintained and nurtured in a new kind of ecumenism that is no longer institutional but relational, missional and spiritually accountable. As congregations leave the PCUSA and presbyteries act on those dismissals, I pray that friendly institutional borders can be established to further the Great Ends of the Kingdom with respect, civility and love. Paul Becker, interim pastor First Presbyterian Church of Bakerstown, Pa. Why does Kirkpatrick want to know about church's finances? October 26, 2006 I am wondering now why the Office of Stated Clerk of PCUSA wants to learn about all of the churches' financiers. Is this a way to get more church property if and when churches decide to leave? If I was a stated clerk of a presbytery, I would not want to answer the 15 questions proposed. Why would the PCUSA headquarters want to do this other than put a claim on all the local church assets? Charles Freeman Mississippi No Presbyterian church should rightly be thought to be a hierarchical church October 26, 2006 I believe it improper to limit the courts in their determination of the type of church governance in particular situations. A recent letter [by Bruce A. McIntosh posted October 24, 2006] indicated that the courts' choice was limited to two. The definition given of a hierarchical church was incomplete. It stated: "A hierarchal church is one organized as a body with other churches having similar doctrine and a common ruling convocation. See, Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church (1952) 344 U.S. 94, 110." A review of Note 15 in Kedroff gives a clearer picture. Quoting Watson v Jones, 13 Wall 679, 722-723, the note states: "The third [not referring to types of governance] is where the religious congregation or ecclesiatical body holding the property is but a subordinate member of some general church organization in which there are superior ecclesiastical tribunals with a general and ultimate power of control more or less complete, in some supreme judicatory over the whole membership of that organization." No Presbyterian church admits of a "superior ecclesiastical tribunal with a general and ultimate power of control more or less complete, in some supreme judicatory over the whole membership of that organization." Rather we Presbyterians are enjoined to deny any decisions of a higher council contrary to the Word of God (Scots Confession) and obey decisions of such tribunals only "if consonant to the Word of God" (Westminster Confession). Therefore, it is clear that legally, no Presbyterian church should rightly be thought to be a hierarchical church. The courts cannot enforce the decisions of presbyteries to take property without trampling on the truly held beliefs of those in local Presbyterian churches who hold the property guarantees in Scripture and the confessions. New York's highest court has held that such "denominational deference" is unconstitutional. Hopefully other states will follow suit. Donald G. Nichol Walden, N.Y. Layman should give up its agenda and work for the good of the church October 26, 2006 Oh come now. The financial questionnaire goes out every year to clerks of session and is a regular part of the record-keeping of the Presbyterian church. Only someone with a guilty conscience would find it "worrisome." Once again, The Layman's fearmongering and scandalmongering demonstrate that it is the National Enquirer among Presbyterian publications. When will you give up your agenda and work for the good of the church for a change? Christine Kooi Baton Rouge, La. Stated clerk asks for more financial information than does the IRS October 26, 2006 Well, this is simply over the top; the PCUSA stated clerk in his recommended questionnaire to local church sessions is now asking for more financial information than does the IRS. Why does he need all that information? The New Wineskin's strategy team interim report says in part, " … congregations (should) be fully informed about the issues over the last 40 years that 'have brought the PCUSA to its present state,' including 'intimidating tactics that have been used to suppress dissent by pastors within the denominations and the actions taken against congregations seeking to be dismissed from their presbyteries as provided by G-6.0103i.'" I suggest that now is the time for the congregations to be fully informed about this troublesome questionnaire and all the other troubling aspects of GA leadership. I am puzzled. Is this questionnaire required to be submitted by the rules in the Book of Order? Will the refusal by local sessions to submit this financial questionnaire to GA be considered a violation of their vows and therefore put them at risk of being taken over by the presbytery? Phil Smith San Leandro, Calif. The divine right of the stated clerk of the PCUSA October 26, 2006 First the Divine Right of secular kings, and now the divine right of the stated clerk of the PCUSA. Art Montgomery Elder (Inactive) Santa Barbara, Calif Property issue: To the folks in the pews, it's a matter of right and wrong October 26, 2006 Rev. Steve Elderbrock [letter to the editor, posted October 24, 2006] has expressed the opinion that it is proper for the PCUSA to acquire the property of a departing congregation, because property is held in trust for the use of the denomination according to the Book of Order. Here's what's wrong with that. 1) It is not legal. When the Presbyterian Church (USA) decided its constitution needed to incorporate matters of real estate, it ventured into areas of civil law. Even Cliff Kirkpatrick, who basically makes up his own rules in GA matters, is subject to civil law. Civil courts across the US are considering the trust issue and the denomination should not be encouraged by most of the recent rulings. 2) It is tearing the denomination apart. It's no wonder that liberals' actions inevitably provoke the opposite of their intended consequence. When you stand the world on its head, it is the nature of things to work against you. For example, the fear or risk of losing property is not cementing the denomination. It is tearing it apart. To confiscate property from your brothers and sisters is so greedy an act, so shameful, so selfish and arrogant, that it is sinful on its face. 3) It is not clear. It is not clear that a property trust exists between a presbytery and a congregation because a document that the congregation did not adopt says it exists. It is not clear that a trust exists that is irrevocable even while a congregation agrees it is still under authority of the PCUSA. And, it is not clear that a trust exists after a congregation says it is no longer under the authority of the PCUSA. 4) It is not befitting a great denomination. Most people I know are only concerned about their congregation's property because they respect the giving of their fellow congregants and their families. If it were up to them, they'd have left the denomination propertyless ten years ago. But, we are also Americans with a strong sense of justice. And we know, viscerally, that this property thing just isn't right. And it's worth fighting the issue, without coveting the property, because to us, the folks in the pews, it's a matter of right and wrong. It is making the PCUSA look so petty and so desperate. Jack O'Brien Pittsburgh, Pa. 'I admire those who stand for his Word' October 26, 2006 Letter to Parker Williamson: "Every time I think of you, I give thanks to my God. I always pray for you ..." Phil. 1:3. Thank you so much for holding forth the standard of God's holy and peerless Word to his people. May he be worshipped alone. We have been somewhat in the eye of the recent storm in the PCUSA (my husband was one of the pastors at Hollywood Pres that had to eventually resign for the "good" of the church). I am watching and praying concerning the present turmoil. I admire those who stand for his Word and thank those at The Layman for ferreting out the truth in this sad but inevitable saga. May the Lord strengthen you as you stand in the gap for those loyal to his excellent Word. Ms. Bren Manock Formerly of Hollywood Presbyterian Church Hollywood, Calif. Let a disaffiliating congregation go with their property October 26, 2006 An October 24th contributor offered his opinion that "The denomination is not stealing the property from congregations," although I think there is compelling reason to think this is not entirely so. There was a time when congregations were in a more seemingly sole and full possession of their property titles (or why else would G-8.0201 have been enacted?). Yes it was the case that presbytery had to be consulted in property matters as it might affect the presbytery at least financially. But just because a church has to ask presbytery for permission to mortgage a given piece of property does not mean that presbytery, and therefore the denomination, owns the property. As I remember it from my youth, it was the congregation alone, via a vote through a congregational meeting, who could decide to buy, sell or mortgage (with the proviso noted above) a piece of real property. Elders (other than as a congregational member), sessions and presbyteries had no such prerogative. It is argued that G-8.0200 was legally put into the constitution by virtue of constitutional amendment through elder representation of the congregation. One key rationale was that when a congregation came to the point of dissolution, having the property more connected to the presbytery would more easily solve the problem of what to do with the property, for the founders of the congregation would have been long since deceased and this would preclude battles involving the families or members who turned out the lights and locked the doors for the last time. Yet something seems amiss. Having voice in regard to a property transaction does not seem to equal property ownership. Unless congregations specifically gave elder commissioners the right to vote for the property held in trust clause, it seems to me elders took a prerogative they really didn't have, that is, if it is now the case that the denomination owns a congregation's property. There is something else that seems a bit amiss. It would seem that the property held in trust clause had as its primary focus and purpose that which pertains to congregational dissolution, not as it pertains to congregations that are viable and want to leave for key theological reasons. If there are no liens against the property one the major reasons (financial liability) for presbytery permission is thus removed. I do not think the contributor referred to above is entirely convincing in his statement that "To claim that the denomination is stealing a congregation's property is hypocrisy...." It's not quite that simple. In fact, there seems to be more than a small germ of truth to the idea it is theft. However, he is correct in his assertion that what we need to do is take corrective constitutional action. An overture to remove G-8.0201 anybody? But lest this be misunderstood, I am not suggesting this need be done for it would bring back problems of yesteryear that we don't need. We could conclude from this whole discussion that it would be a generous and grace filled thing to let a disaffiliating congregation go with its property, God's blessing and without financial encumbrance. One thing would become readily apparent -- those that remain a part of the PCUSA will be because they choose to and not because their property is being held over their heads. This would be good for all involved. Rev. Steven L. Seng First Presbyterian Church Wellsburg,W.Va. Free grace crowd is less than gracious when it uses power to its advantage October 26, 2006 Rev. Elderbrock regularly uses the word "hypocrite" when he writes [8/06, 10/06] to The Layman regarding churches that do not support the PCUSA property clause. He indicates back in August that the property clause is a much longer standing clause than G-60106b – fidelity and chastity. A review of years shows that the property clause did not come into affect until the 1970s it was adopted for the entire denomination in 1983 after reunion and had full force after a six year period 1989. So six or seven years separates these two. Clearly the idea of the Presbyterian church owning the property is new. The concept of church leaders practicing the sexual standards that are clear in Scripture goes back over 2000 years and only recently had to be codified in the Book of Order because of the gross neglect and arrogance of those who have infected the church with pagan beliefs and practices. So the left says "give local option" for ordaining leaders because they have no power in this area and have not been able to force the church to swallow this abomination. When they cannot pass those changes in the Book of Order many violate the rules and do what is right in their own eyes and act in a congregational manner because "it is a matter of justice" they say. Then with courts strategically stacked with like minded brethren exercise power to ignore the rules and quash complaints. Pure hypocrisy. One must ask the reason for the property clause. It is designed to prevent abuses and decisions that may be lacking in forethought. In a congregational church, the building and land can be provided by a member, who if they later become disgruntled with the church, can lock up the building and sell the property. We have built a system of checks and balances to avoid that problem. The error comes when those who are a vocal minority and have exclusive representation in the higher governing bodies use the power they have not to tend to the life of the local congregation and bless them for service to the kingdom wherever they would best fit, but choose to extort money from these same churches that faithfully supported the denomination financially, and seek not to be repaid for all those contributions or a percentage of the endowed funds that would belong to them, but seek to leave with what they already paid for, their building. The property clause does not preclude that option; it simply gives the presbytery the authority to carry out that function in a sensible fashion. But it seems the free grace crowd is less than gracious when it can use power to its advantage and force congregations to choose financial hardship or living like hypocrites in an denomination that has been hijacked by a false religion. If that is to nuanced let me put it another way. If I pay for it and you take it from me without paying for it that is theft. If you want to hide behind a bureaucracy and play intricate games with the rules to your advantage and lash out at anyone who will not play the game your way that is hypocrisy and theft. Rev. Jim Conner Arcadia Presbyterian Church The court will determine whether PCUSA is hierarchal or congregational October 24, 2006 John Adams' discussion of whether the PCUSA denomination is "hierarchical" may be theologically correct, but it is legally unsound. While a professor of theology has many categories of church polity (i.e., congregational, presbyterian, episcopalian, apostolic, to name a few), the professor of law has only two: hierarchal and congregational (also called "independent"). These are legal terms of art. They are defined by case law. It does not matter what any particular church, or church member, thinks of its own polity, or even how it describes its own polity. Whether a church is hierarchal or congregational is a matter of law for the courts to decide. The court will review the facts of the manner in which the church governs itself and determine whether it is hierarchal or congregational. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a congregational, or independent, church is one that owes no fealty to any external body. See, Watson v. Jones (1871) 80 U.S. 679, 722. A hierarchal church is one organized as a body with other churches having similar doctrine and a common ruling convocation. See, Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church (1952) 344 U.S. 94, 110. Of course, determining that the PCUSA denomination hierarchal, does not end the discussion. It is simply to say that while a particular church is part of the denomination it is subject to its decrees. The issue is what does it take for a particular church to disaffiliate. In California, anyway, the law is emerging that may provide remedies (and hope) to local churches. Bruce A. McIntosh Article should be read by any attorney defending a church with property issues October 24, 2006 The Layman Online did an excellent job today of clarifying the term "hierarchical" as it pertains to Presbyterian church history; very timely since in a previous article it was pointed out, "The Presbyterian Church (USA) has filed a brief in a California church property dispute on behalf of another 'hierarchical' denomination that seeks to confiscate the property of a congregation" This amicus curiae brief, as it is called in legalese, appears to be disingenuous based on the history of the Presbyterian church. Judges don't like being misled and the strategy by the Synod of Southern California and Hawaii and Hanmi Presbytery could well backfire against the PCUSA. I hope "Legal 'hierarchical' claims contrary to PCUSA history" is carefully read and considered by any attorney defending a church with property issues attempting to disaffiliate with the PCUSA. Phil Smith San Leandro To claim that the PCUSA is stealing a congregation's property is hypocrisy October 24, 2006 I am amazed at all the people decrying the "theft" of church property being taken from congregations when they decide to leave the denomination. We are not a congregational church. We are a connectional church, and chapter VIII of the Book of Order makes this clear in terms of property – and this section of the Book of Order is NOT new. This is the constitution that all ministers of Word and sacrament and all ordained elders promise to uphold. G-8.0201 clearly states that all property is held in trust "for the use and benefit of the Presbyterian Church (USA)." G-8.0301 specifies what happens to property when it "ceases to be used by that church as a particular church of the Presbyterian Church (USA) – that property "shall be held, used, applied, transferred, or sold as provinced by the presbytery." This property issue is not new. The denomination is not stealing the property from congregations. The congregations are trying to get around the clearly stated provisions of our constitution. Chapter VIII has not been hidden all these years – any elder or pastor in the PCUSA knew it was there and should have known what it said. The solution is not to blindly ignore it, but to work to change it, if we, as a denomination, feel that we no longer want to be connected in this way. To claim that the denomination is stealing a congregation's property is hypocrisy, plain and simple. Rev. Steve Elderbrock Ottawa, Ohio Why force anybody to be a part of something they can no longer support? October 24, 2006 My previous letter [posted October 18, 2006], apparently, has caused a bit of a stir within my presbytery and without. This is curious to me since the letter merely expressed my opinion and the last time I checked I am allowed to have one of those. I appreciated what Frances Wildsmith [letter to the editor, posted October 20, 2006] wrote; it was information that was not included in the original article and had it been part of the article, I likely would have expressed my opinion in slightly less vehement terms. My opinion, however remains the same. If a congregation feels it is the Lord's will to leave the denomination, they need to just leave and the powers that be need to be gracious and let them go. Why force anybody to be a part of something they can no longer support? Besides which, all this in-fighting is not helping the cause of Christ. Dr. Mike Porter Norton Presbyterian Church Hierarchical ideas go back at least to two US Supreme Court opinions October 24, 2006 Thank you for the article by John H. Adams in The Layman Online, Friday, October 20, 2006. Just as a point of information, as you may know, these hierarchical ideas go back at least to two US Supreme Court opinions, the first by Brennan and the second by Blackmun, involving property disputes and the PCUS. At the time at least one expert in Church polity was extremely surprised at the idea that the Presbyterian Church was hierarchical. After the issuance of these opinions, in some places new deeds to churches and their property were drawn up and refiled and recorded. Although the polities are quite different, I suspect that these opinions contributed to the perception among some people that the Presbyterian Church was a hierarchical church like the Roman Catholic Church. The opinions are: Presbyterian Church in the United States v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440, 89 S.Ct. 601, 21 L.Ed.2d 658 (1969) and Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 99 S.Ct. 3020, 61 L.Ed.2d 775 (1979). John M. Metzger Princeton, N.J. Churches paying GA per capita finance taking property from congregations October 20, 2006 Who's supporting the theft of church buildings from PCUSA congregations? So let me get this straight: The Office of the General Assembly's Office of Legal Services has issued a lengthy and revealing paper which gives tactics for prevailing in legal attacks devised to rip away from local congregations the meeting places they have paid for with the sacrifice of time and resources for years if not decades or more. Question: Who would support and fund this kind of evil enterprise? Answer: Any local church paying per capita to the General Assembly. The Office of Legal Services under the authority of the Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick operates exclusively from per-capita gifts the gift that just keeps on giving. The protest of course is that the local presbytery must send on all of its obligations and "I don't want to hurt my local presbytery" when it is the G.A. I have a beef with. Tell that to the churches losing their buildings. James Conner California Half-baked, half-truths are to the destruction of a once Biblical tradition October 20, 2006 Thank you for your article on the "hierarchical" nature of our church, that is, the lack thereof. It is more helpful than you could have known. In regard to the recent conversation over whether our denomination is anything of a representative democracy or not, your article also supports the view that we are a representative democracy. You quoted the AI of 2006, specifically the section stating "Another theological principle which lies at the root of Presbyterian polity is also derived from Scripture. It is the clear understanding that all are sinners. Any individual entrusted with very much power may well misuse that power. Individuals may only represent the governing bodies of the church in order to carry out the instructions or directions of the body which empowered them to speak or act, and they are always responsible to the church body they represent," as well in the statement "but we believe that the corporate life of the church is best expressed by our system of representative governing bodies in which ordained officers act on behalf of the church." All of these half-baked, half-truths are not only theological lies and detriments to our souls, but they also are to the destruction of a once vibrant and Biblical tradition. Rev. Steven L. Seng First Presbyterian Church Wellsburg, W.Va. The necessity of resisting tyranny is the legacy of the Reformation October 20, 2006 The aftermath of the Hugenot Genocide by the French in 1572 where 60,000 Protestants were killed in one month has some parallels to the situation in the PCUSA today, specifically that of claim that the PCUSA is a "hierarchical" church. Today's level of violence is not the same because that violence is carried out by lawyers in courtrooms instead of soldiers in the streets, but the office of Clifton Kirkpatrick has taken a similar tyrannical role in this matter based on the mistaken assumption of Louisville's indisputable authority to exercise its will despite the protest of regional presbyteries or local sessions. In the wake of the slaughter then, Theodore Beza, Calvin's heir in Geneva advanced the doctrine that resisting tyrants was completely lawful as long as the resistance was carried out by lawfully elected "intermediary magistrates." The doctrine of the lesser magistrate was, in part, the theological rationale for the legitimacy of the American Revolution. In light of this, even if the PCUSA were a "hierarchical" church instead of a "connectional" church as we used to be so fond of saying, the Reformed tradition justifies and lauds the efforts of "lesser magistrates" – in this case regional presbyteries and in the event of their cowardice local sessions – to stand against the tyranny of Louisville. Because the PCUSA General Assembly has placed itself outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy by their actions last June (and since 1967 in fact), and because these property seizures and threats of administrative commissions are to punish those protesting the errors of the church, it is the duty of both regional presbyteries and local sessions to resist in this matter and those who do not resist are also betraying the legacy of the reformation by failing to resist both tyranny and heresy. Thanks be to God, many presbyteries are showing some backbone and refusing to persecute churches who wish to leave. Others are refusing to accept the homosexuality endorsed by the General Assembly. But the necessity of resisting tyranny is the legacy of the Reformation and so those resisting Louisville's tyranny are the "true Reformed church" despite Mr. Kirkpatrick's delusions that there is a Reformed church that is hierarchical and wields the absolute authority of God. Martin Thompson 'No wall is large enough to keep family and friends imprisoned' October 20, 2006 The proposals from Western North Carolina Presbytery to increase the hurdles for a church wanting to leave the denomination remind me of the now-removed Berlin Wall. For years Soviet controlled East Germany spent their time and energy to keep the East Germans from leaving. In the end the wall was torn down and the East Germans were reunited with their West German family and friends. No wall is large enough to keep family and friends imprisoned. There will come a time when the wall is torn down and the members of the PCUSA are once again reunited with their family and friends in the PCA and EPC. Larry Rued Guidelines filled with sly maneuvers designed to keep us from finding our way out October 20, 2006 In his recent letter to the editor, [posted October 18, 2006], Dr. Mike Porter wondered about the audacity of our presbytery (Western North Carolina) to create such guidelines for dismissal. To give you some history on this, some of the pastors who wished to leave asked them in good faith to create a process for dismissal. These pastors wished to leave peacefully and there was an indication from the "powers that be" that a fair and decent process would be created to accomplish this. However, after reading the proposed guidelines that were created, it is apparent that they planned for the process to be like a maze. It has some promising paths, but when you try traveling down any of these roads, they all have the potential to dead end at any point. It is filled with twists and turns and sly maneuvers, all designed to keep us from finding our way out! Frances Wildsmith Murphy Presbyterian Church Churches must also agree on where they want to go October 20, 2006 One note of clarification to your article, which stated that when a congregational vote takes place "members of the congregation would vote by secret ballots offering two choices: 'Request dismissal' or 'Do NOT request dismissal.'" If I understand the guidelines correctly, this vote also must specify to what Reformed body the church is being dismissed. Therefore, the congregation not only must agree that they want to leave the denomination, they must agree upon which other denomination they wish to join. Toni Cook First Presbyterian Church Waynesville, N.C. Remaining with the PCUSA is 'walking in the counsel of the wicked …' October 20, 2006 "Well done, Stow Presbyterian Church ... good and faithful servant." Your decision to be faithful to the Lord Jesus Christ and his Word will be highly commended by our Lord. Rev. Weyrick's comment about the PCUSA's teachings as "apostasy" should be a warning to all other members, congregations and individuals alike: Remaining with the PCUSA is "walking in the counsel of the wicked, standing in the way of sinners, and sitting in the seat of scoffers" (Psalm 1:1). The PCUSA is apostate, period. No turning back for the denomination in its decades-long desire to apostasize. No discussion of resolutions and overtures needed. Now, the task for Stow Presbyterian Church and other congregations and members is to affiliate with one of these true and faithful, Presbyterian, Reformed denominations: OPC, URCNA or PCA. Nollie Malabuyo Concord, Calif. Why would an unhappy congregation abide by such nonsensical guidelines? October 18, 2006 Talk about the height of arrogance! Imagine, imposing guidelines on a congregation wanting to leave a denomination by that denomination itself. The sheer idiocy of this boggles my mind. Why would a congregation that unhappy with the denomination abide by such nonsensical guidelines? It's not as if the PCUSA has any real power or influence. It is pathetic that this denomination would hold a congregation's property over their head just to keep them in the fold. It is unfortunate (and an abomination, in my opinion) that the majority of our churches signed their property over to their presbyteries. Mine did not, a wise decision I applaud. However, I am convinced the Lord will provide a way out for these congregations and a place of worship if they step out in faith. It's time the "true church," congregations that preach the Word and practice what they preach, looked to the author and finisher of their faith and not to an impotent and compromised denomination for guidelines of service. Dr. Mike Porter, pastor Norton Presbyterian Church Norton Va. 'Leaders' of PCUSA are failing to uphold the tenets of our faith October 18, 2006 There is no alternative when the "leaders" of PCUSA are so clearly failing to uphold the tenets of our faith. Our church will likely be engaging in this debate and I will support the Stow position, if and when the occasion arises. Joanne E. Langdon The most moving movie that I have ever seen October 18, 2006 Thank you for writing such an elegant article about Facing the Giants. This is an incredible movie that every man, woman and child should see. Simply said, this was the most moving movie that I have ever seen. We need more movies of this type. Maybe it would be a better world if we did. Ed McLean Maitland, Fla. 'Give the prodigals their fair share and let them go without a single court battle' October 18, 2006 They can say they are going by the rules, following the Book of Order in good conscience. They can say "them's the rules" and champion their legal rights in regard to property. But the real question is this: When did we decide that property is more important than the people who paid for it? What happened to our once-generous hands? Our singular focus on using what we have in order to spread the Gospel, even sacrificially? Like one of the more infamous medieval popes or archbishops, the PCUSA is starting to look like a bloated land-grabber, preparing lawsuits to feed the Beast of Louisville. Honestly, what justification is there ever for taking property out from under a congregation that has paid for and maintained that property – one that continues to proclaim the Reformed faith in perfect, historical continuity? When did we decide that property is more important than the Gospel mission? If a congregation is not tow-the-line-obediently in conformity to the rather progressive terms that continue to fuel our inner conflicts (PUP, sex, etc.), then you are suspect. What is the right thing for the PCUSA to do? Simple. Let congregations go that want to go, no strings attached. Shed a tear if we must, but our more-conservative congregations despise what is passing for justice-love theology and feel their consciences would be better-served by disaffiliation. We see it with the Episcopalians going Anglican – no difference. The Christian thing to do is to launch them out of the nest with a fair distribution of holdings in common. The PCUSA should be like the father of the prodigal son, hoping and praying that the prodigal congregations will in fact come to their senses and return home in the end. Why the PCUSA isn't doing it now? The PCUSA doesn't believe in itself. Conservative congregations tend to grow while liberal ones tend to slowly erode. Conservatives are always the ones to break off, historically-speaking, in any denomination. Why do they go? Because they believe they can make it on their own. They trust in God to provide for them as they pursue their vision of what is right and good ministry. They take the leap and bear all the risks of new church life. We should always allow them this chance. The PCUSA doesn't believe that it will survive without a fat reserve of property to sit upon. If the large, more-conservative congregations want to leave, then there's a sizable chunk of change the denomination can no longer count as its own. The Bible calls it by a word: "Greed." We should be more interested in doing the right thing than in surviving. We are all about sacrificial love and sacrificial giving. Give the prodigals their fair share and let them go without a single court battle. Pray for their return. But let's not repeat our Roman brothers' and sisters' ugly history. It's just property, and no one lives forever. Noel K. Anderson, executive pastor First Presbyterian Church Bakersfield, Calif. 'Why do you search for the living among the dead?' October 18, 2006 Dear Constitutional Presbyterians, If we can inherit the Church of Jesus Christ as an heirloom passed from sinner to sinner, generation to generation, then we can be beneficiaries of the true Presbyterian church. Why do you search for the living among the dead? Jack O'Brien Pittsburgh, Pa. Kirkpatrick's been at the helm during much of the disintegration of the PCUSA October 18, 2006 It seems that every week brings news of another congregation (or two or three) seeking to leave the PCUSA. Despite the actions of Clifton Kirkpatrick's lawyers, anytime a congregation decides to leave the PCUSA, they are already gone in spirit. I wonder if Clifton Kirkpatrick ever thinks about Edward John Smith, captain of the Titanic. Many historians place the blame for the sinking of that great ship on Smith, who disregarded iceberg warnings and gave orders to steam full speed ahead. If the PCUSA continues on its present course and does break apart, how will history treat Clifton Kirkpatrick who has been at the helm during much of the disintegration of this once great denomination? Joe Woods Misguided view of polity is a disconnect between GA and the people in the pews October 18, 2006 Lest a half-truth go unchallenged, may I respond to Meghan Foote's contribution of 10/16? Ms. Foote contends that our form of government is in utterly no way a representative democracy. She cites the truth that we have commissioners as opposed to delegates as proof along with her citation of G-4.0301d, that is, that "presbyters are not simply to reflect the will of the people, but to seek together to find and represent the will of Christ." The half truth is that our form of government is not exactly a representative democracy such as we find in the secular realm. But when she says "it has never been anything of the kind," she goes much too far. The fact is that while G-4.0301d does indicate presbyters seek to discern the will of Christ when they get to their meetings and respective work, they also in fact reflect the will of the people who commissions them. Clearly, this is not an either/or, but a both/and. This ought to be seen on two levels: First, according to our polity as just outlined, and do not discount the second level. Try and tell our folks in the pews that those whom we elect as commissioners have no interest in what they have to say or think or want communicated or enacted! Lest what I write be misconstrued, it is not primarily about Ms. Foote's letter. It seems to me that this misguided view of our polity, as represented by Ms. Foote's contribution, is precisely one of the disconnects between GA and the people in the pews. The increasing percentage of restricted funds, the increasing suspicion and even rejection of GA actions by churches, individuals and presbyteries as a whole demonstrate we truly are more of a representative democracy than some want to admit, or even desire. We pray that GA and those who don't at present get it figure it out sooner rather than later. This is not a condemnation of GA, Ms. Foote or anyone but a plea for them to recognize the full truth before it's too late. Rev. Steven Seng First Presbyterian Church Wellsburg, W.Va. A reason to vote Democratic? October 18, 2006 Since the purpose of the NCC is to lobby for the Democratic Party, if they should again come into power, then the NCC would no longer be needed. Almost enough to make me consider voting Democratic! Kermit Gay Orlando, Fla. There's an ancient American proverb, 'Money talks' October 18, 2006 Today Madonna's adopted child left Malawi. He's a one-and-a-half year old boy named David Banda. No, Madonna wasn't with him; he arrived in London accompanied by two of her staff. There has been here in Malawi a cry of outrage. The law says that one must have been a resident in Malawi for one year before being eligible to adopt. A spokesman for the Malawian government told the BBC radio today that after all, it's only a law, and as such is subject to interpretation. I tell my students here that there's an ancient American proverb, "Money talks." They smile knowingly. They have a similar proverb in their culture. The child, meanwhile, is more of an orphan than ever. He has a living biological father whom he will probably never see again. He will probably seldom see his new "mom." One suspects it was a publicity stunt on her part. Oh well, the kid will probably not die poor. Something similar happens in Christian circles. An American Christian celebrity flies into Africa for four days. He checks into the Sheraton or Hilton, along with a case of bottled distilled water. He spends the next four days telling the Africans how to be the church. The next thing you know, his picture is splashed all over the cover of Christianity Today, along with a bunch of smiling African children. This sends the public the message, "This man is the world's foremost expert on all things African." A number of years ago, an NFL football player named Alex Karras was a guest on the Johnny Carson Tonight Show. Johnny asked him what, to him, was the most frustrating thing about playing for the NFL. Karras replied that it's playing one's heart out for an hour, and then they send in a Hungarian field goal specialist who runs onto the field shouting, "I wanna kick a touchdown! I wanna kick a touchdown!" I think about that whenever a celebrity, Christian or secular, comes to Africa and becomes the focus of attention. Both people within the indigenous population and among the missionary community feel used as a result. But there's another perspective on being "used." Martin Luther once said, "While I sit here drinking my Wittenburg beer, the Gospel runs its course." You may object to his reference to beer, but his theology was correct. God doesn't need us, he uses us. I can think of nothing better than to be used up by God in his service. What a privilege to be a missionary! Let others get the publicity; I can genuinely say that I feel immense gratitude to God for what he has done with my life. And oh, by the way, how'd you like to be the "Material Girl," Madonna, on Judgment Day? Rev. Dr. Larry Brown African Bible College Lilongwe, Malawi Seminary president can't recognize a disconnect between belief and practice October 16, 2006 With people like Dr. Thompson at the helm of one of our denominational seminaries, is it any wonder that the larger world doesn't understand what the PCUSA believes? If the president of an institution founded on the premise of preparing men and women for Christian ministry cannot recognize a disconnect between belief and practice, how can we expect others to do so? Really, Dr. Thompson, would your blind loyalty to political correctness permit the use of your chapel for a wiccan celebration? How about a black mass? Perhaps you should be encouraging a celebration of Ramadan. Yours is a PCUSA seminary. To permit its facilities to be used to promote activities that are anathema is malfeasance at best. At worst, perhaps it was malevolent. Shame on you sir. Correct the error in your house. Rev. James C. Yearsley Tampa, Fla. Yuma church lives by the ministry of reconciliation expressed in '67 Confession October 16, 2006 The First Presbyterian Church of Yuma, Colo., is a wonderful church dedicated to serving Christ through its local ministries and through the PCUSA. It has supported candidates for ministry within the PCUSA, most notably Sue, Louise and Mary Westfall, the three sisters who wrote the 2003-4 PW Bible Study. The church has sought to live by the ministry of reconciliation expressed in the Confession of 1967 in reaching out to the struggling and the hurting in the community. For many years, the church did not even lock its doors at night, in order to provide a place of refuge for those needing shelter. During the 10 years I served as pastor in Yuma, I ministered in a church that was alive, vibrant and an active participant, first in the Presbytery of Boulder and then the Presbytery of Plains and Peaks. There is little chance of them leaving the denomination. Besides, "nothing in all creation" could break the close ties the church has with Highlands Presbyterian Camp and Conference Center near Allenspark, Colo. The stories I heard about the Heisermans were that they were people who saw beyond a local, parochial viewpoint and wanted to benefit the world and not simply the local church, which is why they gave their bequest for use in the larger church. If the Yuma church now benefits in any way from their bequest, I am confident the session and congregation will use it responsibly in a mission of reconciliation, care and hope both in the community and the presbytery. What is more, I have full confidence in the Presbyterian Foundation to manage the funds responsibly, carefully and faithfully. John Pehrson Salina, Kan. GA was formed to serve the congregations, not the reverse October 16, 2006 Lets applaud the findings of the Mississippi Presbytery Task Force; (because) it most likely reflects the feelings of 70 percent or more of the PCUSA congregation church members and ordained leaders. Lets pray that the Mississippi Presbytery receives a "yes" vote to accept all the task force findings by a resolution to be voted on October 19th. In short the task force report rejects PUP #5 by the General Assembly this year on the ordination of practicing homosexuals plus rejects any contention that church property is owned by anyone other than the local congregations. Will other presbyteries around the country also bravely throw down the gauntlet to the GA (and knowingly risk incurring their wrath) like Mississippi is doing? Strong presbytery leadership, sensitive to local congregational viewpoints, is crucial for the future. After all, the local congregations were formed first in this country followed by presbyteries, synods and finally the GA as the church grew. Somehow the tail is now "wagging the dog" and that trend needs to be reversed before this grand old denomination is destroyed by a minority of higher up church officials. Democratic principles must be returned to the congregations. Remember, the GA was formed to serve the congregations, not the reverse. Phil Smith San Leandro, Calif. Don't change the system so that the human voices are better represented October 16, 2006 Rev. Foreman cites G-4.0301e in his letter but he apparently skipped over G-4.0301d on his way there. Rev. Foreman seems to be laboring under the impression that the PCUSA is a representative democracy, when it has never been anything of the kind. The reason we refer to the people that we send to presbytery, synod or GA as "commissioners" and not as "delegates" or "representatives" is that they are not there "simply to reflect the will of the people, but rather to seek together to find and represent the will of Christ[.]" Larger churches do not need to send more commissioners because the commissioners are not there to speak on behalf of their particular church or particular political viewpoint, but to listen for the movement of the Holy Spirit and to act accordingly. We are all imperfect creatures and commissioners on both ends of the theological spectrum repeatedly fail in this goal, but I don't think that the answer to that failure is to change the system so that the human voices are better represented. Meghan Foote Greeley, Colo. Reformed theology holds that humanity introduced sin into the world October 16, 2006 In a recent article (10/12/2006) about Stow Presbyterian Church in Stow, Ohio voting to disassociate itself from the PCUSA, your unidentified author said "Long-established interpretation says the serpent [in the Garden of Eden] was Satan and that he introduced disobedience and sin into the world." This is not the Reformed interpretation. Reformed theology holds that humanity, not Satan, introduced disobedience and sin into the world. Adam and Eve chose of their own free will to eat the forbidden fruit. To say otherwise denies the "T" of TULIP. To say otherwise denies our responsibility for sin, and denies the need for Christ's saving grace. To witness to that grace against the hijacking of our denomination by those who would destroy it is vitally important, but not at the expense of the need for the grace to which we witness. Rev. Kevin L. Johnson, pastor First Presbyterian Church Avonmore, Pa. Did he really say this? October 16, 2006 In his letter to "The Layman online" [posted October 10, 2006] Ritchie Jones wrote, "The rate of decline improved in stages all the way to 9/11." The rate of decline improved! I'm still laughing at that "astute" observation. That's like saying, "We're still dying but not quite as fast as we were!" R.C.Oates Brookhaven, Miss. |
|
| October
2006 letters, page 2 Home · News · PLC Publications · The Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |