 |
|
| February
2007 letters Archives of letters to the editor  |
|
| Committee's
unreasonable criticism of presbytery has no basis in law or fact February 27, 2007 Re: Baton Rouge judgment conflicts with Book of Order, panel finds The position taken by the Administrative Review Committee (ARC) of the Synod of the Sun regarding the actions of the Presbytery of South Louisiana (PSL) shows a reckless disregard for the facts of the case or the law of Louisiana. A brief review of the facts will show that the presbytery acted properly. The First Presbyterian Church of Baton Rouge (FPCBR) was organized in 1828. The present sanctuary was built in 1928. The session is interested in making certain capital improvements to the existing structure. It was aware, however, that given the general malaise of the Presbyterian Church (USA), no capital campaign could be successful while the ownership of the property was unclear, with the PCUSA alleging the existence of a trust by G-8.0201. The church corporation brought a suit to settle the ownership of the property so that the capital campaign could proceed. The FPCBR was a former PCUS church prior to the merger of denominations in 1983. These PCUS churches were given the option to elect out of the trust provision of G-8.0201 by G-8.0700 The session of the FPCBR did that on October 18, 1987. Therefore, the implied trust of G-8.0201 did not apply to the FPCBR. Furthermore, no entity or person affiliated with the FPCBR ever acted to create any sort of trust with the PCUSA as a beneficiary. In short, there was no basis in law or fact on which the presbytery could prevail. The presbytery wisely and amicably elected to settle the matter with a stipulated judgment. This avoided further legal expense in a case in which the chance of success was nil. Now that the ownership of the FPCBR's downtown property is settled, the way is clear to mount a drive to raise funds for capital improvements to an aging physical plant. The unreasonable criticism leveled by the ARC against the presbytery has no basis in law or fact and can only serve to create further ill will within the denomination. One statement is particularly disturbing:
Although the ARC claims that they want to "promote harmony" and "build up the body of Christ," such improper criticism from the ARC seems likely to generate further alienation of congregations and presbyteries from the Synod of the Sun and the General Assembly Council. The Synod of the Sun should act promptly to repudiate the position taken by its ARC. George Hill, member First Presbyterian Church of Baton Rouge Dirt and stuff: That's what makes us Presbyterians February 27, 2007 Over the past few years, and especially in the past six months, I have considered just what it is that makes the PCUSA tick. I have been puzzled by its stubborn refusal to clear up a number of ambiguities in its polity. For instance, the PCUSA expects deacons, elders and ministers of the Word and sacrament to "receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith," but for 80 years, it and its predecessors have refused to declare just what it is that is "essential." We surely don't want to offend any non-believers by declaring that Jesus is exactly who he says he is in John 14. (And we couldn't do that anyway, because we also refuse to declare that John 14, or any other Scripture, is necessarily authoritative. Or even true!) The next ambiguity is the concept du jour of Presbyterian connectionalism. "Oh, we have to stay unequally yoked to preserve our historic Presbyterian connectionalism." And yet, I cannot find a decent description of what those people in Louisville think our "connection" is. Thus, we owe a real debt of gratitude to the Synod of the Sun and its Administrative Review Committee. With the wise counsel of the Rev. Mark Tammen, director of constitutional services of the General Assembly PCUSA, this committee tells us that when the Presbytery of South Louisiana entered into a constitutionally-appropriate judgment regarding First Baton Rouge's property, it "negate[d] the connectional covenant of our Presbyterian polity." Thank you, Synod of the Sun. You have finally defined for us just what the bureaucracy of the 21st Century PCUSA considers to be the source and basis of our connection. Thank you. "But, wait a minute," you say. "What is that connection? Is it a common belief in the inerrancy of Scripture? How about a well-defined and undeniable belief in the virgin birth and deity of Jesus Christ? Could it be a connectional belief in his substitutionary atonement on the cross and his bodily resurrection? A public affirmation that Jesus Christ is coming again? Or maybe, just maybe, it is all of the above?" Alas, no. Nope! No way. Unh-uh! The thing that connects us is … dirt. In this case, the good rich earth of Louisiana. But Pennsylvania clay, West Texas sand or the red earth of Georgia will do as well. Bricks and mortar. My brother, Jim Henkel's fellowship hall painted rose or lifeless off-white. Those little plastic communion cups and the broken crayons in the toddler classroom. Stuff. The denial of the teachings of Scripture? That doesn't divide us. The refusal to shout from the mountain tops, without qualification, that no one comes to the Father except through Jesus Christ? That's just a minor disagreement over semantics and phrasing. The "Classic Comics" version of the Trinity? Hey, it's the 21st Century in America, man! No, what "negates the connectional covenant of our Presbyterian polity" is the temerity of a church or a presbytery to look at certain legal documents and to take them for what they are. The refusal of a presbytery to engage in costly and unnecessary litigation, that is what negates our connection. So, the next time anyone asks me, "What is that you Presbyterians believe in?" I now have an answer. We believe in dirt and stuff. That's what makes us Presbyterians. Hey, Pastor Jim. Have you got a spare gallon of rose-colored paint? We need to repair our connection. Michael R. "Mac" McCarty, elder Forks of the Brandywine Presbyterian Church Glenmoore, Pa. Nostalgic about the PCUS? Come over to the PCA February 27, 2007 If Mr. Freeman [letter to the editor, posted Feb. 23, 2007] is feeling nostalgic about the PCUS, all he has to do is to come over to the PCA. We came out of the PCUS and yes, we still have the solas, the TULIP and respectful belief in the sovereignty of God. Robert Demarest Cuminale Charlotte, N.C. A denomination held together by a trust is doomed to dissension and decay February 27, 2007 When the Presbytery of St. Andrews removed the case to federal court, the long-dead lawyer in me remembered that the adjudication of property issues is a matter of state law, and so it was likely that the case would be remanded, as it has now been. The action of removal, as the judge seemed to sense, was so contrary to what most first-year law students would have answered to a question in federal procedure that the only reasonable conclusion is that it was a litigation tactic. (Of course, we cannot today know what the next step the parties will take or the ultimate result in secular courts.) I think this, and other litigation tactics being used in secular and church courts, points out the dramatic difficulties that we face as a denomination. Whatever a state court might hold, a denomination held together by a trust clause rather than by common faith and doctrine is doomed to dissension and decay. Whatever else the situation may involve, we should be able to see that we are not in a good place. Whatever secular courts may rule, we should not hold congregations within the denomination because of a property trust clause. Here is where a return to Calvin might help us all find a peaceful way out of our dilemma. For Calvin, it is fundamental that a church is a body that "agrees on the one truth of divine doctrine, and is bound by the bond of the same religion" (Institutes, 4.1.9). The true church is bound together by sound doctrine and brotherly love (4.2.5). Brotherly love, however, depends upon the existence of the first element – sound doctrine:
An inevitable result of a lack of doctrinal agreement is, for Calvin, the dissolution of the church. This aspect of Calvin's thought is jarring in an age committed to theological pluralism. Yet, Calvin's observation explains the factionalism that is the Presbyterian Church (USA): Without a doctrinal center resulting in a common way of life, factions are inevitable and unity of spirit and love are impossible. A church without a doctrinal center simply dissolves from the inside out. The constant calls by those in control of our denomination that we need to be an "inclusive body" is, unfortunately, not only false as a matter of doctrine, but unworkable as a matter of polity. Consistent with the importance of the pure preaching of the Word, the church has two primary doctrinal responsibilities: To set out the doctrines of the faith and to accurately teach them (4.8.1). The dignity of the church and respect for its leadership is dependent upon maintaining the ministry of the Word entrusted to the apostles and their successors (4.8.2). When pastors faithfully proclaim what the Scriptures teach, they follow in the footsteps of the prophets and the apostles (4.8.3-4).It is the apostolic faith that much be proclaimed and taught, though leaders are free to adjust their teaching to the "diversity of the times" (4.8.5). This freedom to adapt preaching and teaching to the needs of the times does not, however, extend to "innovation." Teachers should teach nothing that is not included in the sacred writings nor depart from sound doctrine (4.8.6). Thus, Calvin writes:
The decay of doctrine and of the teaching office of the church is one of the clearest indicators that some kind of confessional and structural distance may be appropriate. Speaking of the Roman church, Calvin criticizes the formulation of new doctrines and the evil of turning people away from the pure Word of God:
To a large degree, the interminable debates in the PCUSA over doctrine and morals are a consequence of the erosion of a common doctrinal center that permits debate to reach a reasonable conclusion within the framework of a common doctrinal consensus. It is difficult for agreement to be reached among persons who disagree on such fundamental aspects of Christian faith as (i) whether God is a transcendent being or a concept describing human capacity for self-transcendence; (ii)whether Christ was the Son of God or a human in whom God was uniquely present; (iii)whether the Cross is central to salvation; whether the resurrection is historical or symbolic; (iv)whether the Old and the New Testaments are divinely inspired documents or records of human contact with the divine, and the like. For Calvin, a lack of doctrinal unity of this magnitude is bound to result in endless debate, fractious quarrels, and lack of unity – exactly what mainline churches have experienced. We can, if we want to spend the next 20 or 200 years in conflict. The leadership of our denomination can, if it wants, use the trust clause and civil courts to attempt to maintain their control over local congregations. In many cases, they will be successful. But, a denomination sustained by force of law rather than the power of the spirit in the unity of the apostolic faith will not be a church – just a fractious debating society. I am writing this article in response to the news and John Almquist's letter. John has frequently urged on the denomination some kind of "two-synod" model. My own view is that we need a "two-fellowship" proposal. We hold this in common: The parties need to confess that we have come to a point of fundamental disagreement and structure our common life accordingly. Quarreling over doctrine, morals, and ordination standards has gone on long enough, and long enough that we all know we will never agree. How long before we can find a better and peaceful way out? So Abram said to Lot, "Let's not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers. Is not the whole land before you? Let us part company. If you go to the left, I'll go to the right; if you go to the right, I'll go to the left." May God be with us and give his wisdom in his dark hour. Chris Scruggs Advent Presbyterian Church Political positions taken by the national Presbyterian church February 27, 2007 My elderly father is concerned about the political positions taken by the national Presbyterian church organization. I am aware of the boycott Israel campaign over the fence, the refusal to enforce the ban against homosexual ministers, the boycott Taco Bell drive. Didn't the church also come out against the Iraq war and the Bush tax cuts? Is there a place where I can go to find a history of the political positions taken by the national Presbyterian church? Keith Orr Editor's note: The PCUSA's Washington Office is the public policy information and advocacy office of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Its task is to advocate the social witness perspectives and policies of the General Assembly. In a series of statements, it has come out against the Iraq war and the federal budget. Submission to authority is a challenge we all face February 27, 2007 I'm curious about the complaints that some PCUSA women religious are making about the EPC. In my own experience, I am aware that taller men have more opportunities presented to them than men of my average 6-foot 1 1/2" height – better looking guys even more. I wanted to be a scientist, but I just wasn't able to cope with the math. I'm just not made that way. But I have all my limbs, all the requisite faculties and I try to keep a good attitude, even when those in authority over me tell me "I can't ..." Submission to authority is a challenge we all face and an important part of our personal walk. So, you could say, I suppose, as Groucho said, "I wouldn't join a club that would have me as a member." Or, you could say, "I wouldn't join a club where I couldn't be a leader." Or, you could figure out how to be a leader anyway. I hear there's an opening on the streets of Calcutta. Jack O'Brien, elder Pittsburgh, Pa. How much will presbytery spend to keep churches in the PCUSA? February 23, 2007 I just finished reading the article, "Case back in state court; presbytery's tactics rebuked." When I composed myself from the belly laugh I got – the U.S. District Judge Michael P. Mills seems to have hit the nail on the head with regard to the tactics employed by the attorney for St. Andrews Presbytery – my mind began to raise some salient questions. It made me want to ask just how much money the presbytery is willing to invest in trying to coerce people to stay in the PCUSA. Of course, maybe the lawyer is working for free, in which case I wondered if the legal term that can be applied to this representation is pro bozo. Rev. Bill Pawson Westminster Community Church Canton, Ohio A Confessing Church Is St. Andrew Presbytery hamstringing itself in civil court arguments? February 23, 2007 In arguing that the controversial and ambiguous property trust clause in the Book of Order is not a civil matter but a matter of church polity, isn't St. Andrew Presbytery hamstringing itself? It seems to me that if St. Andrew successfully argues that the civil courts must stay out of the matter, it leaves itself no way to execute on its victory. This is because, unlike civil law, PCUSA law has no system for commanding those who renounce it to come to heel. St. Andrew Presbytery would have to come back to civil court to force execution on their decision regarding title. But that case has been argued and decided. It's clear that when it comes to matters of property, conduct and other interactions with the secular community, civil law must supercede. Jack O'Brien, elder Pittsburgh, Pa. Corinth case: Misuse of the federal civil court system to harass February 23, 2007 What about the 10th amendment of the U.S. Constitution? In the Corinth Mississippi case, we have a state court case dealing with issues of the validity of a trust provision and property issues, clearly issues relegated to the states under the 10th amendment. The church property and presbytery are located in the same state. These are not theological questions and they do not involve property in more than one state. Clearly, under the 10th amendment, these are legal questions to be resolved by state courts. So, where is the federal standing? This is a trust and property case, all the parties and property are in the same state, and it appears that the PCUSA is not an arm of the federal government. There is no federal standing. What there is is "malicious prosecution" and misuse of the federal civil court system to harass. The attorneys moving in federal court should check with their malpractice carrier. They may find they have taken on much more than they bargained for. John Almquist Reinvent the old PCUS instead of reinventing the PCUSA February 23, 2007 If this conference wants to reinvent the PCUSA, they need to go back to the standards of the old Presbyterian denomination. When the PCUS (the old Southern denomination) joined in with the PCUSA, we lost our standards which were true Reformed theology: The Five Solas. We lost the meaning of what Presbyterians believed in. We need to reinvent the old PCUS instead of reinventing the PCUSA. Charles Freeman A common tactic by big organizations to bully small plaintiffs February 23, 2007 I don't claim any expertise with federal practice, but the presbytery's jurisdictional argument looks very weak. The core issue here is interpretation of state law. That is, whether ownership of church real estate is determined simply by the title or can the presbytery support their argument of an implied trust. The federal courts traditionally shy away from such matters. The likely result is the wheels will grind for a while, then the District Court will send the matter back to state court. It's a common tactic by big organizations to bully small plaintiffs. Often, the attorney for the local organization is not admitted to federal practice. So another attorney has to be hired, adding to litigation expenses. Then there is the added psychological pressure by moving the case from the local court (where the judge is probably well known to the community members) to the distant and mysterious federal court. Tom Taggart What is CCM doing within the PCUSA to discipline its leadership? February 23, 2007 As an active elder in our church, I struggle along with others over the trends of the PCUSA and its leaders. With the current movement of a group of 151 churches (the New Wineskins Association of Churches) that are planning to leave the PCUSA for the EPC (Evangelical Presbyterian Church) on Oct. 29-30, I wonder what is our Confessing Church currently doing within our denomination to discipline its leadership? Is it possible, or not in your opinion? We are confessing the truth. Our denomination is corrupted. Can we do something to save it? Our session is looking and praying for guidance of any and all sorts. We will be meeting with a local group of elders from surrounding churches in the near future to discuss this further. Thanks for any insight you can offer. Pete Vandewater, elder/treasurer Curwensville Presbyterian Church The discipleship of NWAC local churches is about to be tested February 23, 2007 Rev. Dr. Larry Brown raises excellent points in his Layman Online posting of Feb. 20. I agree that many rank-and-file local church members are oblivious to denominational issues. It does not "bother" the average Joe or Jane in the pew that our General Assembly stated clerk "is a liberal," that "the door is open for the ordination of" those engaged in sexually immoral lifestyles, that the doctrine of the "'Trinity' is being tampered with," that "the Bible has been largely discarded" in our rush to embrace unity in diversity, and "that there are advocacy groups in the PCUSA championing leftist causes." These realities simply do not impinge on the choice of paint color for the fellowship hall; or whether the pastor has called on Uncle Mel on the anniversary of Aunt Alice's death; or whether the deacons should provide the congregation with a range of memorial flower choices to grace the Easter chancel, thereby breaking a 45-year tradition of white lilies only; or whether In the Garden gets more Sunday morning play-time than O Sacred Head Now Wounded or Celebrate, Jesus! Celebrate! "If they do," Dr. Brown rightly observes, "it is easier" for the average member "to move his" or her "family to another church than it is to change the denominational affiliation of the" congregation. Even here, it has been my experience – in more than 30 years of pastoral ministry – that very few folks will abandon their local church over denominational issues. Memberships are pulled because the call on Uncle Mel did not get made, or the fellowship hall should have been painted rose instead of that lifeless off-white, or because someone hurt somebody's feelings, or the pastor dared to make the King James Version translation of Hebrews 12:8 a sub-point in last Sunday's sermon (has s/he never read James 3:1-12?). The old saw rings true: the devil is in the-details; the big, denominational issues don't hit home with anything near the same frequency or force as the little, parochial things. The plain truth of Dr. Brown's observations renders what occurred in Orlando on Feb. 9 an event of amazing significance. The rank and file members of 130 PCUSA sessions are so concerned about current affairs in our denomination that they took the trouble to send delegates to the New Wineskins Association of Churches (NWAC) Convocation. Then, each and every delegate so sent stood, quite literally, stood, in agreement with the recommendations of the NWAC Strategy Team. This unanimous vote declared that individuals and congregations who are part of the Presbyterian Church (USA) and who desire to remain faithful to Jesus Christ, as he is revealed in Holy Scripture, have only two possible choices. First, they can choose to remain members of the PCUSA. A local church or individual member can choose commitment to speaking with a prophetic voice to our denomination, while striving to serve as a model of continuing, righteous obedience to Christ Jesus within a national organization that celebrates the full inclusion of broadly diverse lifestyles and ideologies. Exercising this first choice is a decision to make the religious establishment of our own denomination the primary focus for mission and ministry. It is an outreach to "Jerusalem." It zeros in on the charge: "And you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem," trusting that others in the larger body of Christ will pick up what remains of Jesus' call, "and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1:8b-c). The second possible choice is to realign "with a Reformed body that is more faithful to Christ, more obedient to Scripture and seeks a missionally-focused partnership with us than is the PCUSA" (NWAC Strategy Team Report, p.16). The Reformed body recommended by the NWAC is the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC), which stands solidly in the mainstream of Presbyterianism in the United States and is a member of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches. Making this second choice allows the energy that would be invested in efforts at denominational reform and renewal to flow toward honoring the fullness of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20). The NWAC and the EPC are jointly dedicated to fostering "a missional church that:
The PCUSA includes a provision in our Book of Order that declares property to be held in trust by each local church for the benefit and use of the denomination (G-8.0201). Contrary to Dr. Brown's opinion, "a rank-and-file Presbyterian" cannot rest assured that his or her local "church will have the same building at the same location." A congregation seeking dismissal from the PCUSA may find that the presbytery of jurisdiction – following the counsel of "The Louisville Papers" – is unwilling to release claim on their assets, grounds and buildings. This can result in extended litigation without a guaranteed outcome. The courts may find in favor of the presbytery, even though the "neutral principles of law" that most often apply to such cases seem to favor the local church. As an alternative to court action, a presbytery may push for a negotiated settlement (with or without accompanying legal filings). History shows that such settlements fall in a broad range from tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars. In my own Eastminster Presbytery, the Stow and Hudson churches voted to disaffiliate from the PCUSA last fall. Though they are each New Wineskins congregations, both decided to make an early exit from our present denomination. Eastminster Presbytery has responded differently to the two churches. There appears to be pressure toward a negotiated settlement with Stow, while an administrative commission has been set in place to deal with Hudson and that case is in litigation. Neither Stow nor Hudson requested dismissal to another Reformed body. Whether such a request would receive a more friendly response from Eastminster Presbytery is unknown. Along with 150 other NWAC local churches, my session and congregation face a momentous decision that potentially carries a very high cost. I have no doubt that many average Presbyterians, if caught in the same circumstance, would balk at requesting dismissal from the PCUSA. This Sunday morning my choice to preach through the Gospel of Luke, at my congregation's 10:30 worship hour, brings up Jesus' comment on the cost of discipleship. He concludes by admonishing: "So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:33). Dr. Brown estimates that only 10-15 percent of NWAC congregations "will actually join" the non-geographic, transitional presbytery to be authorized by the EPC. He may be proved right but, if he is, it will not be because of the "inertia" factor that plaques the muddled-middle of our denomination. It will be bricks and mortar, clapboard siding and stained glass windows that hold congregations back from requesting dismissal to another Reformed body. It will be an unwillingness to corporately renounce all that they have. The discipleship of my own NWAC local church and that of 150 others is about to be tested. Pray for us, brothers and sisters. Pray! Jim Henkel, NWAC endorsing church pastor North Benton Presbyterian Church North Benton, Ohio, Eastminster Presbytery 'New Mexico courts already use neutral principles of law in church property cases' February 20, 2007 Concerning the article posted on The Layman Online concerning the bill now pending in the New Mexico legislature (which, if passed, would direct New Mexico courts to use neutral principles of law when resolving church property cases), I respectfully suggest that both the bills' proponents and the bill's opponents may need some midcourse correction or fine tuning about the approach that has been taken or some of the statements that have been made. First, I am advised New Mexico case law indicates that New Mexico courts already use neutral principles of law when resolving church property cases. If this is accurate, then the proposed legislation seeks only to codify existing law. It does not represent a radical change in New Mexico law, as some of the bill's opponents have argued. To codify the law, however, the preferred approach would be for the bill's proponents to specify, within the text of the bill, what the legal ground rules are – by itemizing or enumerating within the bill those factors which, if present in a particular church, would result under the statute in clear title in the local church (without any interest, in trust or otherwise, by a third party such as a denomination or middle governing body). Indeed, the U. S. Supreme Court, in Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (1979), said this is one method (legislative adoption of a set of statutes that do not require civil courts to weigh in on doctrinal issues) which states can choose to follow in order to constitutionally resolve church property issues. If such an approach were followed and a bill passed and enacted into New Mexico law, then the next time a court in New Mexico had a church property case on its docket it would apply the statute to resolve the matter rather than just looking to prior case law. That already happens routinely in a wide variety of other contexts (insurance, tort liability, etc.), and presumably would elicit no objection from the Administrative Office of the Courts in New Mexico. The other approach to codifying the law, however, the legislature simply telling courts to generally use "X" method, could trespass on the separation of powers. This appears to be the basis for the objection to the bill voiced by the New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts. To address this objection, though, germane amendments to the bill might be drafted by the bill's sponsor(s) to itemize or enumerate the requisite factors within the text of the bill. The outgoing executive presbyter of Sierra Blanca, Rev. Webster, who opposes the bill, also may be in need of some clarification. While the bill may inject the legislature into judicial affairs in a manner, as currently drafted, that trespasses on the separation of powers, the bill certainly does not inject the state into ruling on church doctrine, as Rev. Webster claims. Neutral principles are specifically designed to do just the opposite, and have been approved as a constitutionally sound method by the U.S. Supreme Court. [By contrast, at least one state Supreme Court has ruled that adoption of the competing hierarchical/deference method, preferred by Rev. Webster, constitutes a prohibited state establishment of religion under the state constitution. See, Fluker Community Church v. Hitchens, 419 So. 2nd 445 ( La.1982).] Rev. Webster's further contention, that church property issues are inherently ecclesiastical matters, is also incorrect, and is belied by the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, the PCUSA Constitution (which in numerous places distinguishes between ecclesiastical and temporal matters), Presbyterian church history, and the PCUSA's own Legal Resource Manual for Middle Governing Bodies (which acknowledges that church property matters are generally governed by state, i.e. civil, law). Finally, Rev. Webster's assertion that, "[I]n hierarchical denominations, current law defers in church matters for the settlement of property disputes," needs correction. As stated, his assertion, whether or not calculated to confuse, is overbroad and misleading. His assertion is not true in New Mexico, nor true in any other neutral principles jurisdiction anywhere in the United States. He, instead, should more accurately say that, if a state is one in which its courts have chosen to follow the hierarchal/deference method, then the courts in that state defer to the determinations made by the highest church body to which the matter has been appealed in a hierarchical denomination, if the local church claiming ownership is a member of a hierarchical denomination. Even if one assumes that the PCUSA is a hierarchical denomination for all purposes (a debatable proposition), that does not mean that a state court must follow the hierarchical method when the party before it is a Presbyterian church. To the contrary, states that have adopted the neutral principles of law method apply that method in their courts to property disputes that arise in all manner of churches that come before their courts, whether Presbyterian, Episcopal or other. Lloyd J. Lunceford, elder First Presbyterian Church Baton Rouge, La. Why should we trust them? February 20, 2007 The energy and heat generated by PUP and the administrative fiat by the corrupt elite need to be viewed from a different perspective. The issue for the conservative evangelicals is not so much if a church may choose to ordain non-celibate, sexually active homosexuals and lesbians, but if they choose not too. Our history does not suggest that the diversity, inclusiveness, pluralism and freedom of thought which have been enshrined as sacraments by Louisville and their minions extend to any who question their orthodoxy. The history of the church, primarily the old Northern UPC in the 1970s, does not bode well for the faithful. In their zeal to establish female ordination as the law of the land, the old UPC engaged in what can only be called a pogrom and selective persecution of those who would disagree. Clergy and ruling elders were hounded, bullied, brought to church trial, exiled, or otherwise marginalized by so the so-called "loving majority." The same architects of that policy are still entrenched on Witherspoon Drive and in many presbyteries. If ever granted the same authority, or if they thought they could get away with it, they would apply the same treatment to the faithful as they did 30 years ago. They did not feel they needed to listen to any dissenting voices then, do not be fooled now and buy their calls for dialogue and reconciliation. Look at "The Louisville Papers" on church property, look at the last two letters from the home office with veiled threats and warnings. The same evil is be unleashed again on any or all who does not bow on bended knee to Louisville or give the pinch of incense to Caesar. Rev. Dr. Peter Gregory Washington, D.C. A response to letters about the Trinity paper February 20, 2007 Some of the letters you have received regarding the fuss about the Trinity and how God is viewed as a gender are interesting. Mr. Milheim notes "My God is a big, big, big, God! I'm taking a sling and a few stones to the fight and Gideon's small army." He also asks how to change the system (the PCUSA) that includes that infamous Confession of 1967. Kevin Smith says it perfectly about God: "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." God is truly the beginning and the end. We all know that and accept it. And it is sad that in the debates no one likes to affirm this reality. We get wrapped up into details. Details do play a place in this, but they can also strangle and kill in the end. I'm going to take the side of details for a moment. OK, God created everything including us. Here are the details. God chose a woman (Eve) to be the mother of humanity. God likewise created the heavens and the earth and was the mother. God had relations with the earth and created Adam. Sorry, but this is true. So, if one wants to be really technical about it, the evidence demonstrates that God is more a mother figure than a father. Although I personally feel it best to see God as both. In fact, God is family that never lets go, that is what really matters. I can't claim to be a fan of the Louisville establishment since I don't know them. I can see how they may seem somewhat distant. Yet, here is the bottom line. It doesn't take a whole lot of effort for us as Americans to drive there, see them face to face, and talk about the issues. Many of us are all fortunate to have grown up in America and have this freedom. And I suspect some have done this and may have left frustrated. My concern continues to be how this is presented as a war, for lack of better words, when it clearly isn't. I've had the opportunity to have been a member of churches on both sides of the spectrum (for lack of better words). The opposing churches have more in common. Seeing a religious debate, in my opinion, as a war is a true tragedy. Does God really shine through in wars? Or is it humanity that claims some sort of glory? Whose side are you on – humanity or God? I choose God. Earl C. Apel, member Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church Cincinnati, Ohio The Trinity paper and 'the meaning of threefold references to God' February 20, 2007 I have followed the conversation in The Layman Online between Charles Wylie and various letter writers about Trinitarian language. It seems to me that one subject hasn't been covered – the meaning of threefold references to God. Charles Wylie referred to the hymn "Holy, Holy, Holy!" and in particular to the last line of stanza three: "Perfect in power, in love and purity." He uses it as an example of "a perfectly appropriate way to speak of the Trinity." I don't think it makes his point. Certainly, these attributes do apply to the Trinity, but the problem comes when people start using attributes of whatever number as if they were names. What if the meter of the line had allowed for only two descriptors of God: "Perfect in love and purity?" Would we then have a Binity? Three wonderful words happened to describe God and fit poetically in the final line. Yes, the hymn is about the Trinity, but does the fact of three nouns used of the attributes of God then lead to the conclusion that the three obviously fit different persons of the Trinity? No. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all powerful, loving and pure. One can't divvy up the attributes, only one per person. Further, if we were to use this example, we could go ahead and say that each of the three persons of the Trinity could be named "Holy," because of the first line of the hymn. Let me introduce the three persons in the Trinity to you: Holy, Holy and Holy. That's silly. We know that "holy, holy, holy" is a superlative, meaning "holiest." Any time we find three items – even descriptors of the Trinity – we cannot necessarily conclude that each one of the three describes one of the persons of the Trinity and can be used interchangeably with the names of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Charles Wylie would probably agree with me on this, but the Trinity paper leads inevitably to such confusion. It did so in prayer at the General Assembly. We can watch for and cringe over "creative" uses of the Trinity paper in liturgies and materials now for years to come. Next, Wylie states: "Interestingly enough, such imagery is also used in the New Wineskins Association of Churches' affirmation on the Triune God, 'The LORD our God is One who is, who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.'" Wait, that's four attributes: is, was, is to come, and almighty. One cannot say that God the Father is, God the Son was, God the Holy Spirit is to come, and Ralph (or whoever!) is almighty. Nor can we scramble the combination of persons with attributes and make it work. What's so special about threesomes? It seems to me that our tongues have a particular affinity to using lists of three. Anything shorter is hardly a list, and longer starts to feel tedious. Three is a satisfying number that we're comfortable with. So, we find lots of threes in descriptions. But simply using three adjectives or three nouns doesn't then mean something is automatically Trinitarian and infused with special meaning. It means that three items were used. Period. By saying my good friend is funny, smart and athletic, I don't qualify him for the Trinity. By saying he is funny, smart, perceptive, and athletic, I don't diminish him, either. The random number of descriptors really has practically nothing to do with the subject of the Trinity. Thus, despite the fact that there are Three Stooges, I would hazard an opinion that Curly, Larry and Moe are not divine, either. Jim Berkley Director of Presbyterian Action Bellevue, Wash. 'Bravo!' for Santa Barbara and other presbyteries February 20, 2007 Bravo! for the resolutions of Santa Barbara Presbytery and the 23 other presbyteries that will stand up for the Lord Jesus Christ, and have adopted the ordination standards of the constitutional Presbyterian churches. So, where are the other presbyteries? It is time to stand up and be counted. You will be required to do that at the end of your life, in any case, why not now? Remember – under G-11.0103, G-4.0300, G-8.0400, and G-8.0600 of the Book of Order – it is the presbyteries under the PCUSA constitution that have the authority to determine ordination standards and property rights. For those at the synod and GAC level who do not understand that, then refer to your state statutes. You will find that under every state's statutes, that the constitutions of nonprofit corporations are enforceable and injunctions against corporate officers who overstep their enumerated authority will be issued by state courts. Put on the breast plate of righteousness, pick up the sword of the of the Word of God, put on the helmet of salvation, and let's go to truly fight the good fight, once and for all. John Almquist The NWAC and inertia February 20, 2007 Recently, much has been made regarding the New Wineskins Association of Churches (NWAC) and the EPC's plan to create a "transitional presbytery" for the purpose of receiving PCUSA churches. My guess is very few churches will actually make such a move. Out of approximately 150 congregations aligned with the NWAC, perhaps 15-10 percent will actually join the EPC. Why? A few years ago, Australia held a referendum to determine whether or not it would ditch the queen and become a republic. To my surprise, the queen won. I suspect it was because the average Australian realized that he wouldn't be able to tell the difference if his country became a republic. He would still have the same boss, the same mother-in-law, etc. Similarly, a rank-and-file Presbyterian realizes that if his church goes EPC, his church will have the same building at the same location, the same officers, etc. That Clifton Kirkpatrick is a liberal, the door is open for the ordination of gays, the concept of "Trinity" is being tampered with, the Bible has been largely discarded by the hierarchy, and that there are advocacy groups in the PCUSA championing leftist causes don't really bother him that much. If they do, it's easier to move his family to another church than it is to change the denominational affiliation of the church. Besides, the EPC is so small that instead of driving to the next county for a presbytery meeting, he might have to fly several states over. I believe the deciding factor here is called "inertia." It was this same inertia that allowed the liberals to take over in the first place. In addition, conservatives weaken their cause by remaining fragmented. Some are conservative and Reformed, others are conservative and charismatic, and still others are conservative and dispensational. The liberals, on the other hand, resemble an ant colony in their ability to unite and march in step. "Pluralism" – as long as it's left of center – is, after all, their stock-in-trade. I should also point out, however, that the EPC presbytery meetings that I've attended were so harmonious as to be positively boring. Looking into the future, the majority of the NWAC will remain in the PCUSA. They will continue to hold periodic convocations, they will continue to whine about how bad everything is, and they will love every minute of it. The only problem is, the system will see the NWAC as troublemakers, and when a conservative pastor leaves, the presbytery will only approve one of "their" people to replace him. Over time, the ranks of the NWAC will grow thinner, and their candle will burn dimmer. Does anybody remember the "Confessing Church Movement?" Rev. Dr. Larry Brown African Bible College Lilongwe, Malawi Response to Robin Wyatt's op ed posted by The Outlook February 20, 2007 Robin O. Wyatt in, "An open letter to Presbyterians: Why not to leave" posted by The Outlook, has surmised that evangelicals who are prepared to walk away from the Presbyterian Church (USA) are in "Satan's grip." Deceived by the "master of deception," they see "repeated victories" on the ordination standards issue "as losses" and feel "marginalized." According to Robin Wyatt's recounting, the successful passage of the PUP report by the 217th General Assembly is the most recent in a series of evangelical victories, which is a characterization of that event of unparalleled uniqueness. "Much has been made of Recommendation 5," Wyatt writes. "Claims are that Presbyterians are now free to disobey the constitution and ordain homosexuals using the 'scruple' process. These assertions are contrary to the plain language of the report: 'The principle established then and confirmed in this authoritative interpretation do not permit the kind of "local option" arrangements that some have proposed, in which each ordaining and installing body sets its own standards. Such a procedure would be new, and it would be un-Presbyterian.'" [Recommendation 5, lines 1133-1137] emphasis added. Wyatt concludes, "The PUP report's foundation is that there is no constitutional or AI change." Certain that this counts as a major win for evangelicals, who should be pleased by such an outcome, Wyatt can fathom no other reason for their vociferous and widespread displeasure, concerning the adoption of Recommendation 5/AI 2006, but that these poor souls must be the unwitting victims of a Satanic ploy by which the devil is bent on "destroying the PCUSA." My own observation is that the PCUSA is so bent on self-destruction that it does not need the devil's help in that endeavor. Even so, I must allow that Robin Wyatt is right about this much: not one dot or jot of the Book of Order and the undergirding Authoritative Interpretations of 1978/79 were changed by the adoption of Recommendation 5/AI 2006. G-6.0106b remains intact, along with all of our other ordination standards. I agree that Recommendation 5/AI 2006 is very careful to leave the ordination standards in place and as is, without change. Unfortunately, it goes on to allow that, "Ordaining and installing bodies have the duty to apply standards and the right to discern which are essential for ordained service" (PUP Report, lines 1141-1142). There has been disagreement as to whether the amendment made to Recommendation 5/AI 2006 from the assembly floor will allow higher governing bodies to overturn the decision of a session or presbytery to ordain and/or install a particular candidate; only a ruling by the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC) will settle this question. In the interim, ordaining and installing bodies are charged to determine: "(1) Whether a candidate being examined for ordination and/or installation as elder, deacon, or minister of Word and Sacrament has departed from scriptural and constitutional standards for fitness for office, (2) Whether any departure constitutes a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity under G-6.0108 of the Book of Order, thus barring the candidate from ordination and/or installation" (PUP Report, Recommendation 5/AI 2006, lines 1060-1065). Until a GAPJC ruling decides otherwise – which it may or may not – AI 2006 has recast PCUSA ordination standards from a set menu into a smorgasbord. I recently attended a dinner theater with a set menu, there were four options: N.Y. strip steak, chopped sirloin, chicken tenders, or vegetable lasagna. Each entree came with appropriate side dishes, a salad, and cake for dessert; no substitutions allowed. My steak came with garlic potatoes and broccoli, period. I would have preferred to "scruple" the broccoli, but it came standard with the steak. The show I saw was well worth the sacrifice of choice of vegetable. Still, I rejoice in a good smorgasbord where eating is the entertainment. There, I can "scruple" broccoli and all of its cousins in favor of five meats; the choice is mine. The spread is pick and choose. I decide what is essential for me. This is the present position wherein AI 2006 has placed each session and presbytery in our denomination. Our ordination standards are now arrayed like a smorgasbord: pick and choose your own essentials. There will be those who make the same decision about G-6.0106b that I make about broccoli at a smorgasbord; it will not wind up on their plate, it is non-essential according to the discernment of their particular palate. This evangelical is "convinced that the denomination is walking away from" essentials that I refuse to abandon. Having stood as one with the representatives of 130 PCUSA congregations to affirm that packing these essentials along on a pilgrimage to realign "with an evangelical, Reformed body that is more faithful to Christ, more obedient to Scripture and seeks a missionally-focused partnership with us than is the PCUSA" is one "faithful option for evangelicals to follow," I will not concede that the-devil-made-me-do-it (NWAC Strategy Team Report, p.16). The New Wineskins Winter Convocation at First Presbyterian Church, Orlando, was so bathed in prayer in the name of Jesus, so fraught with seeking God's face, so filled with praise to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, so overflowing with the proclamation of the Gospel of Christ, that there was no room for Satan to slither into our proceedings. Have you not read the Scriptures, Robin Wyatt? The Bible says: "Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also." And again, "By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already" (1 John 2:22-23, 4:2-3a). The New Wineskins Association of Churches confesses Jesus Christ, honors God the Father, and blesses the Holy Spirit. Every evangelical, confessing congregation and individual within the PC(UA can do nothing better than to give the NWAC Strategy Team Report very careful, prayerful consideration. The report may be found at newwineconvo.com. Hard copies may be ordered at $15 per copy (checks payable to "New Wineskins"), from New Wineskins Initiative, 7435 E. Oxford Court, Wichita, Kansas 67226. Jim Henkel, NWAC endorsing church pastor North Benton Presbyterian Church North Benton, Ohio Eastminster Presbytery 'Louisville Papers' reads like a script from the mafia show The Sopranos February 16, 2007 How sad to hear that the First Presbyterian Church in Corinth, Mississippi had to get a restraining order against its presbytery to protect its property rights and its members from a frivolous lawsuit. May the Lord bless them as they try to continue to witness their community while the forces of Satan move against them. It was not the title of the piece that gave me pause; it was the tagline that preceded it: "We felt like we were forced to this point." The well written legal complaint, in which the judge, for now, agreed is a litany of the actions, false beliefs, behaviors and attitudes of the leadership of what has now become an apostate cult in its threats and methods. Not the PCUSA members, mind you … just its leadership. From the leadership of this dysfunctional family come all of the strife, anguish and pain for those who still actually profess Christ and Lord and Savior, having been born again and being guided by the Holy Spirit. Are you to worship God, or Louisville? From the affair at Hollywood Presbyterian to the events in Tulsa, the leadership of the PCUSA has erred not only in its application of the inerrant Word, but in its use of its administrative power, its threats on ministers' pensions and its threat of costly legal action for its own selfish edification. As I reflected on the complaints, and reviewed the "Louisville Papers," I was sure I was reading a script from the mafia show, "The Sopranos." Being the first to stand up for freedom of religious expression, I found myself wondering why the U.S. Justice Department has not brought a RICO action against those in Louisville. Their threatening behavior certainly is not legal, far from "religious" and most certainly not "Christian." More like a family gone bad … a nightmare which has no end to the pain, the hurt and the anger. My heart aches as I pray continually for my brothers and sisters in Christ who have chosen, for whatever reason, to stay with a denomination that at best can be described as an abusive spouse and at its worse, "La Cosa Nostra." Do not be unequally yoked. Come out. Follow the Lord Jesus. Robert Smith Pittsburgh, Pa. Kirkpatrick's appeals ring hollow in light of his own actions February 16, 2007 The stated clerk's appeals for Christian/denominational unity and reconciliation, in and of themselves, certainly are appropriate. But they ring hollow in light of his own actions, which are the great source of disunity. It is all too clear what he and the rest of the PCUSA leadership mean by reconciliation. If the rest of us would only see the error of our ways, then peace and unity would prevail. Gene Kinney Kirk of the Hills (formerly PCUSA) Tulsa, Okla. Kirkpatrick has not defended the Father February 16, 2007 As usual, the stated clerk abbreviates the Biblical witness for his own purposes. The witness of John as in John 17:20 is: "My prayer is not only for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me." NIVThe stated clerk has not defended the Father; he has not defended the ones through whose message we believed. Without acceptance of the Father and the words of the prophets who foretold Jesus and the witness of those who walked, talked and fellowshipped with him, there can be no unity, only the presenting chasm of division. James Logan McHenry, Md. God's word itself – as written – is wonderfully sufficient February 16, 2007 Charles Wiley provided a thoughtful letter to the editor on February 14th, that said, "Interestingly enough, such imagery is also used in the New Wineskins Association of Churches' affirmation on the Triune God, 'The LORD our God is One who is, who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.'" I would suggest that most people do not have issues with phrases directly from the Bible. That phrase used by NWAC (and also in the Trinity report) is repeated throughout the book of Revelation, and is almost a direct quotation from Revelation 1:8: "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."So that phrase, "who is, and who was, and who is to come" is such a beautiful phrase – because that phrase comes directly from God's word. In the Trinity report, some of the imagery included words taken from different places in the Bible and concatenated together, sometimes "stretching" the original context of the words (as Wiley mentions in his letter), and tying them together with other words in the Bible. This was troubling to many readers, because God's word itself – as written – is wonderfully sufficient! I commend Charles Wiley for realizing and stating that there were flaws, and I agree that there were probably misconceptions about the paper – that many conclusions were drawn that were not intended. I am concerned, however, that the damage has been done. If a "feminist agenda" was not part of the writing of the "Mother, Child and Womb" triad, then those offering the prayer at the General Assembly certainly did not help the cause for this paper. The negative press and media exposure has also done tremendous damage to the reputation of PCUSA. I was wondering if the paper could possibly be augmented in any way before sending it for study by congregations. If this is not possible, could the Office of Theology and Worship send a formal letter listing both the flaws and intentions of the paper, with an apology for how it was received? Will that be a part of the video introduction? Kevin T. Smith Mechanicsville, Va. Diversity trumps unity -- even the Trinity is given multiple meanings February 16, 2007 The PCUSA is in crisis – in theology, in leadership, in membership, in finances, in missions. There has been for several years a hemorrhage of members and churches. Sinful behavior and deviation from Scripture has not only been accepted but glorified. Lesbian pastors held a conference which denied Jesus Christ and worshiped Sofia, and was paid for by the PCUSA. A Presbyterian Peacemaking study published during the cold war was anti-American and pro-communist. This caused several members to leave our church. Presidents of Presbyterian seminaries have turned out graduates whose theology is grounded not in Scripture but in secular values, and what about a lesbian marriage conducted in a seminary chapel? Disciplinary measures against those who ordain homosexuals and conduct same sex marriages are dismissed. The Washington Office acts like a loose cannon promoting partial birth abortion, same sex marriages and ordination of homosexuals. Can anyone distinguish right from wrong? Many churches are leaving or considering leaving. To prevent such losses the GA stated clerk directed presbyteries to take punitive action against ministers and sessions for property and assets of those churches which attempt to leave. Translation – staying in the PCUSA means you must affirm the ordination of homosexual church officers, the wedding vows of gay marriages and whatever perverse behavior the leadership finds acceptable. Biblical faithfulness is optional, depending on individual preferences. Diversity trumps unity – even the Trinity is given multiple meanings. Conformity will be achieved by intimidation. It is hypocritical for a church leader to call for unity when he promoted a report that is driving us apart. Why have many presbyteries confirmed ordination standards? Why are there several renewal organizations that have opposed for years the anti-Biblical behavior in the PCUSA? Why have so many churches withheld GA per capita? Why do so many pastors go along to get along? Members in the pews seem to be far more evangelical and conservative that the clergy which leads them. There seems to be an unwillingness on the part of the GA stated clerk, the GA staff, and the PUP task force to admit that their behavior has caused deep divisions in the PCUSA. Their behavior tells members, no matter your discontent, we know what is best for you. We need a Martin Luther to reform the PCUSA! Jack Vanderbleek, elder Northeast Presbyterian St.Petersburg, Fla. |
|
| February
2007 letters, page 2 Home · News · PLC Publications · The Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |