 |
|
| June
2007 letters Archives of letters to the editor  |
|
| The
PCUSA no longer has a message June 29, 2007 Presbyterian Church (USA) churches are abandoning the PCUSA because the PCUSA no longer has a message. The social Gospel has been a dismal failure for nearly 100 years, and the PCUSA will continue to lose PCUSA churches and members. The PCUSA is the blind leading the blind. Lou S Nowasielski Wilmington, Del. Washington Office speaks for a minority of Presbyterians June 29, 2007 The call to action on amnesty for illegal aliens from the Washington Office is just another example of that office speaking for a minority of Presbyterians. It's also another example of why that office should be abolished. Joe Woods PCUSA's politics do not further the faith June 29, 2007 Noticeably absent from the Washington Office's position on immigration is any mention of Christ, faith or religious freedom. That is because its position is pure and simple politics. Now, having said that, we must recognize that it is certainly proper for the church to engage in the political process, as being faithful does not abrogate one's responsibility to participate in governance. But the question then becomes one of the purpose of the church's participation, and its witness to the faith it seeks to further. Neither side of the immigration debate can lay claim to being theologically right. It is clear that the Washington Office of the Presbyterian Church (USA) does not further either its position or the faith with any logical arguments or articulated faith-based position. It simply takes a political position for the sake of taking a political position. Playing pure politics with faith dilutes the Gospel message, and is therefore a very dangerous game to play. While the church should not shy away from taking a political position, it should do so in a manner faithful to its membership and, more importantly, faithful to the faith. Nothing in the Washington Office's actions accomplish either. Forrest Norman Hudson, Ohio A response to Christine Kooi June 29, 2007 There are some [Letters, June 28, 2007] who would question a church having 160 present of 400 members for a congregational meeting and would intuit some form of impropriety. Well, let us look at the statistical report of the Presbytery of South Louisiana and the congregations there: University Presbyterian (where Kooi is a member) in 2003: Membership on Rolls = 373 – Worship attendance = 157 In fact, a great number of churches have worship attendance well under 50 percent of their membership. Conspiracy? Or the sign of a dying denomination? All of us know that statistics are dangerous. Bill Crawford Pastor First Presbyterian Church of Thibodaux Thibodaux, La. Increasing number of congregations leaving the PCUSA June 29, 2007 In the past year, you've reported what seems to be an increase in the number of Presbyterian Church (USA) congregations voting to leave the denomination. Is anyone tabulating this data and comparing it to pre-PUP vote numbers? I haven't seen any reports about the size of the exodus. I'm interested in both the number of churches and the membership population they represent. Neal Humphrey Fruit Heights, Utah A response to Mark Karasek June 29, 2007 Mr. Karasek [Letters, June 25, 2007] made note of the 10 Commandments in response to my latest letter and the importance of following them. I could not agree more. Yet, I think his remarks lead me to wonder if he is truly reading the Bible or watching the great Hollywood movie from the '50s with Charlton Heston in the role of Moses throwing down the tablets and causing a mighty explosion, thus the wrath of God? The fact is the Exodus account has some interesting statements. Look at Chapter 21. It notes (King James): "Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them. If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go free for nothing." In fact, in further reading, you get the drift that owning people is OK. Is it really? Well, maybe so. It's there in black in white. Does owning people make their bodies a holy temple to God or to the master? Mr. Karasek also notes: "This nation was once blessed by God and was a light to the world in terms of missionaries, etc. Now, we are one of the largest recipients of missionaries from other countries." Well, I don't think this is a surprise. The fact is America needs to wake up and smell the coffee, to use an old saying. We are too focused inward and somehow think we will save the world on our own, forget about Jesus Christ. Yes, that is true. Just look at the current world today. America is going to save Iraq. Get real. In our boasting, we simply make fools of ourselves and claim to be the savior of the world. But, in fact, that is humanistic in putting faith into a obviously human system. It's not liberal or conservative, just lack of common sense. We all know better. We need the missionaries coming here now, for common sense, decency and love of each other is quickly fading. This raises another interesting question. If Mr. Karasek truly believes that God loses patience, why would missionaries be coming to America? Actually, God should be sending an atomic bomb to America to wipe us out. I expect that would be easy for some crazy group out there to do. Going back to the debate on same-sex relations, isn't that amazing that it causes so much fuss? Mr. Karasek was right in challenging me that I did not include physical relations between persons of the same sex as sin. He may not have perceived my point in that the relations do not necessarily negate our body being a holy temple. I have yet to have heard concrete evidence that same-sex physical behavior in the context of love will not make our bodies holy temples when we know Christ as Savior. I will add that I was fortunate to have two loving parents of the opposite sex who are still together and led me in my Christian faith. They certainly complemented each other and I am most fortunate in having the perfect role models Mr. Karasek notes for parenting. I've met many others who also complement each other in the same manner, yet they are of the same sex. But, in all cases, they are part of the Body of Christ. To believe that God will condemn love between two persons that is just as affirming as any other makes no sense. Only Satan condemns love. Think about it. Earl C. Apel member Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church Cincinnati, Ohio EPC vote on transitional presbytery was 'all-but-unanimous' June 28, 2007 In your articles about the Evangelical Presbyterian Church's approval of the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery, you have stated several times that our 27th General Assembly approved it "overwhelmingly." Having served as a commissioner there, I think it might be an encouragement to your readers, as well as a testimony to the genuine difference in the EPC, to note that this isn't exactly accurate. This assembly – the largest in our history-approved the New Wineskins Association of Churches Presbytery with only one "nay." And having done some sniffing around, it seems from what I've gathered that that single "nay" was not cast because that commissioner disliked the proposal in principle, but because he had some concerns about the precise details of the proposal. I mention this because there is a difference between "overwhelming" (which could be 60, 70 or 80 percent) and "all-but-unanimous." I hope that this vote illustrates to your readers that it is indeed possible to be Presbyterian and irenic. In this, the most significant assembly since the EPC was constituted in 1981, our denomination has exhibited (in my mind) the substance of what Jesus prayed for in His high priestly prayer of John 17 – that we would be one and that we would be one in love. Rev. Austin Olive Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church Covington, La. Questions for the moderator June 28, 2007 Kenneth W. Long of Wichita, Kan., [Letters, June 27, 2007] has requested questions to ask our moderator, Joan Gray. I have a couple. When she visited First Presbyterian in Montreat (last January, I believe), she stated she had not read "The Louisville Papers." She is something of a polity expert, holds a high elective office in the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the documents in question only added kerosene to the fires of discontent after the 2006 General Assembly. Why hadn't (or hasn't) she read them? If she has read them, what are her thoughts? Cindy Coleman Glen Alpine, N.C. A response to the Quincy church story June 28, 2007 If 162 out of 400 members voted to leave the denomination, then that, in fact, means 40.5 percent of "Quincy, Ill., congregation votes to seek dismissal." Your headline is imprecise and misleading since its wording implies that three-quarters of the congregation voted to leave, while the article reports that in actuality three quarters of those voting wish to leave. Christine Kooi Baton Rouge, La. The flight from main stem Presbyterianism June 27, 2007 Now that the developers have installed a considerable amount of infrastructure, the flight from the main stem of Presbyterianism seems to have begun, as noted in recent articles. Churches that are part of this movement appear to be looking for the stability of traditional and conservative Christianity enjoyed in a setting relatively free of the messiness of church politics and progressive theology. Like those who have moved to avoid the drug scene discovered drug dealers, they also realize the potential for business in pristine areas those who plan to affiliate with other Presbyterian systems will probably find the totters' of progressive theology will soon be in their midst, too. By leaving the Presbyterian Church (USA), conservatives have elected not to continue to address the messengers of progressive theology, perhaps thinking it will simply die as the former main church sinks into bankruptcy. Unfortunately, the powers that motivate progressive theology continue to be very determined to spread their gospel and will do so perhaps much more easily without the conservative churches that chose to leave. Therefore, one might conclude all Christians become more vulnerable to liberal thinking. But how did we get to the point we are at now? In my opinion, we failed to guard the gate. We failed to remember that, in a democratic system of church government, anyone let in has the potential to rise to the top of the system. Because conservatives, like myself, tend to avoid controversy and embarrassment, we don't like to closely question seekers or candidates for ordination or commissioners to higher political bodies; nor do we want to participate in litigation that might confer upon us the title of "witch hunters." Therefore, we seem to wish bad things will simply go away by God's command. My interest in these matters was stimulated by being elected an elder commissioner by my presbytery to two general assemblies, where by lot I was assigned both times to serve on the Committee on Ministry. Each time, I worked with the Presbyterian Coalition and other similar groups to achieve the goal of defeating the overtures that would permit homosexuals to be considered for ordination. Although we were successful on both occasions, I must say the opposition was well organized and very boisterous in their lobbying. To me, it seemed like it would be only a matter of time – unless, of course, the Lord drastically interfered – they would win. Although the Reformed organizations are well managed, they simply do not seem to have the obvious support of the rank-and-file conservatives in individual churches. These pew sitters would seem to rather just talk about the problem and then sit back and see what happens, with the thought that they can always leave if they get too uncomfortable. One last observation: It was only after I became an elder commissioner to General Assembly that I discovered the vastness and the depth of the problem. Somehow, this awareness of the problem must be taught nationally to both the elders and pew sitters through laymen that have taken the time to study and understand the problem. Pastors, on the other hand, already have studied theology and usually have come to their own conclusions regarding the problem. Because they are our leaders, we tend to rely upon their conclusions and judgments. Therefore, unless church elders and pew sitters are highly motivated, the problem continues to be superficially understood, which can result in knee-jerk actions such as separation, leaving the problem out there to spread itself around even further. In closing, we remember the Apostle Paul writing that we Christians should put on the full armor of God as we move about our tasks. And to me, it means we must fight progressive theology, which truly is, in my opinion, unsupported by Holy Scripture. Donald Mitchell The PCUSA's obsession with property June 27, 2007 I would like for someone to explain to me how Matthew 8:18-22, Luke 9:57-62 and 1 Corinthians 6:7 is compatible with the Presbyterian Church (USA)'s positions on property issues. O.D. 'Skip' Slaughter Kingsport, Tenn. What would you ask the moderator of the PCUSA? June 27, 2007 The moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA) is slated to visit First Presbyterian Church in Wichita, Kan., in early August. As one who has many issues with the PCUSA, I intend to ask some questions, if there is an opportunity to do so. I am very unhappy with the PCUSA's meddling in foreign affairs and domestic political issues through their Washington, D.C. lobbying office. To the best of my knowledge, they did not ask my opinion or the opinion of any other member about any of the causes that they promote. I resent being used and misrepresented in this way. I disagree with their promotion of abortion ( partial-birth abortion, especially), the ordaining of homosexuals and the general watering down of the values of the Presbyterian Church. My ancestor's must surely be rolling over in their graves at the current condition of the church. On my mother's side of the family, I am descended from the Guthries of Scotland, some of whom were Presbyterian ministers, both in Scotland and the U.S.A. Many generations of the Guthrie family laid their lives on the line in the defense of liberty and the preservation of their religious convictions. One question that I intend to ask of the moderator is: "Does the fact that the PCUSA has lost over two million members make you and other leaders of the church wonder if there is something wrong with what you are doing?" My question to readers is, "If you were present at the moderator's visit; what would be the questions that you would ask?" Kenneth W. Long Wichita, Kansas 'Trickle Down Stupidity' June 27, 2007 The Presbyterian Church (USA) is promoting divestment in Israel and other American corporations. At the same time, the PCUSA is investing in the Baptist, Methodist and other religious organizations. Good Christians are leaving the Presbyterian Church and joining other religious organizations and taking their pocket books with them. This Presbyterian policy is called "Trickle Down Stupidity" and it starts at the top. William M. Reeves Birmingham, Ala. Thank you for 'The Layman's voice of reason and truth' June 25, 2007 I have been a member of the Paola Presbyterian Church since 1964, and my husband was baptized in this church congregation. This is my first letter written to anyone about my concerns for the Presbyterian Church (USA). I have so many heartfelt thoughts going through my head as we prepare to vote this Sunday evening at a congregational meeting to ask Heartland Presbytery for dismissal with property. I have sadness about probably needing to leave this fine church building, but I have such peace and joy that we will be free from the PCUSA's un-Godly leadership. I just reread again your article, "Heartland Presbytery OKs plan to target congregations thinking about leaving PCUSA." Thank you so much for The Layman's voice of reason and truth through your efforts and others. This is the only way I am hearing of any truthful reporting of the June 16th Heartland Presbytery meeting. I attended and was heartsick at the tenor of voice and spoken words coming from the Heartland Presbytery leadership as we tried to speak to the consideration of a substitute motion that would, indeed, share control between the presbytery and local churches on the issue of dismissal with property from the PCUSA. As Mr. West from the Hillsdale Presbyterian Church reported to you [Letters, June 21, 2007], we also experienced the same "lip service" from the recently hired Heartland Presbytery executive secretary. He attended, with the members of a Heartland Presbytery committee, one of our church informational meetings on Sunday, June 10. Mostly, he spoke to the fact that our session and the presbytery were probably not that far apart in what the final action plan would indeed state. That, of course, was not what happened at the presbytery meeting June 16. They voted to give themselves 102 percent control, making the action plan also retroactive and futuristic in control over any and all churches in Heartland Presbytery. The leadership of Heartland Presbytery took to their un-Godly hearts "The Louisville Papers" and, as someone's pen/cursor flew across the page/computer screen, our caring and all-powerful God's guidance was forsaken – but only for a time, only for a season. I believe PCUSA General Assembly leadership and our Heartland Presbytery leadership are not seeking the will of God, but are in the process of self-destruction and the future implosion of the PCUSA denomination. Thank you again for sharing your God-given skills of writing and reporting the truth. We sincerely need your prayers for the Paola and Hillsdale pastors and church members. Hillsdale church members have voted and Paola members will vote Sunday evening. Very little time left for all Paola church members to hear the truth and understand that they are not voting for a brick and mortar church building, but for church leadership who wants to do the will of God. Janet R Rhea Paola Presbyterian Church Paola, Kansas About the Heartland Presbytery meeting June 25, 2007 I am an elder on session of a church within Heartland Presbytery, and I was a commissioner to the June 16 presbytery meeting. Thank you for your report of the meeting, and I offer here some data, unofficial but from my notes. In the perfecting process, the vote on the amendment (brought by the Rev. Doug Burford) to the main motion (the committee on ministry motion) was 46-79 and the amendment failed. The vote for the substitute motion (presented by the Rev. Dave Moore) to become the main motion was 44-91, so the substitute motion failed. The vote to approve the main motion, the committee on ministry motion, was 91-39, so it was approved. What was scheduled in the docket for less than 25 minutes (time allowed for the entire committee on ministry items) lasted well over two hours, but I did not record the time. As others have said, it is a shame the meeting was not videotaped. Beyond the fact that voting was orderly by the raising and counting of pink cards distributed only to commissioners, the committee on ministry portion of the meeting could have been used as a teaching tool on parliamentary disarray. Let me also clarify the comment in the letter from John West [Letters, June 21, 2007] regarding the "substantial time" given for a pro-life presentation and presence in Heartland Presbytery. First, yes, there is a pro-life presence generally at every meeting of Heartland Presbytery, brought by Heartland Presbyterians Pro-Life, a chapter of Presbyterians Pro-Life. Neither Heartland Presbyterians Pro-Life nor Presbyterians Pro-Life are official entities of the denomination. I am a member of both boards. The Heartland Presbyterians Pro-Life presence at meetings of presbytery dates back to the '92 policy of our denomination and pregnancy resource centers and alternatives to abortion. Each year, Heartland Presbyterians Pro-Life complies with whatever policy is determined by the presbytery in order to be a visible witness and provide resources. Although we have presence with our display table, it is extremely rare that something about pro-life activity is spoken on the floor. So, it was a rare thing indeed that at the June 16 meeting I rose twice to speak regarding pro-life. It should be noted, however, that neither time was specifically granted on the docket. The first was during the opening time in the docket for introductions. Presbyterians Pro-Life Executive Director Marie Bowen (Pittsburgh, Pa.) was in town and present at the meeting, so I introduced her. The second item was during announcements where I provided information on the abortion-recovery packet that Heartland Presbyterians Pro-Life has prepared for each congregation in the presbytery, and extended an invitation to a pastors' luncheon and a ministry-equipping workshop that Heartland Presbyterians Pro-Life will hold in September. I was inviting all of our churches to be equipped to minister to those around their congregations affected by abortion. During breaks, Marie was not overrun by folks flocking to greet her, and only a couple of people came by the table for their church resource packet. It could very well be that other things were on people's minds with the committee on ministry report coming up right after lunch. However, I appreciate Mr. West's mentioning the pro-life activity. Heartland Presbyterians Pro-Life does, indeed, have many friends in Heartland Presbytery. Di Lupton elder First Presbyterian Church Olathe, Kansas About the New Wineskins name June 25, 2007 As a retired missionary to Sudan and Iran, I should alert you to the problem Muslims may have with the name, Wineskins. They have great resistance to the use of wine, and will not understand the analogy in the Bible. They may assume it is a tribute to the wine used in Episcopal liturgies, such as in the Catholic and Coptic Church communions. Our avoidance of alcohol has given the evangelical churches a better chance to make converts up to now. Marge White Brownsville church case makes me cry June 25, 2007 Of all the articles about churches seeking to leave the Presbyterian Church (USA), this article not only takes me to my knees, but in tears. The financial issue is significant, but the total lack of interest in the reasons that caused this problem is an even more significant issue. Would that Cliff Kirkpatrick and every commissioner to the 217th General Assembly that voted for PUP, the Trinity and related issues – it was a block vote, you could feel it – be required to read this article. How can they sleep at night or even face the Lord in prayer? Kermit Gay elder commissioner 217th General Assembly Two words on Brownsville church case June 25, 2007 All I can say is: evil and greed! Thomas R. Harms A response to the Brownsville church case June 25, 2007 Thank you so much for your amusing headline, "PCUSA will profit from sale of church it didn't help build." The implication is that those who are now members of the church and desire to leave the denomination are those who "paid for" the building and are thus entitled to take it with them when they leave. Such is not the case. Most of the current members of the church have joined in the second half of the life of the church, and many in the past few years. They did not pay for the property either. And, as you correctly pointed out, one of the significant contributors to the construction of the church was another PCUSA congregation (or one of its predecessor denominations). Over the years, the church was maintained by members of the PCUSA, led by PCUSA pastors and prayed for by other PCUSA congregations … prayers which continue to this day. Faith Presbyterian Church in Brownsville was never an independent congregation. They were part of our PCUSA family, even if they did not always agree with the direction of the denomination. As one of the presbyters who worked with this congregation, I believe Mission Presbytery was extraordinarily fair and compassionate in dealing with them. We went to great lengths to bring their request to leave before Mission Presbytery at our June meeting in order that they be able to move to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, if that denomination votes to receive New Wineskins churches in the next few days. We were also cognizant of their financial struggle, which is why we only asked for money if and when they chose to sell their building, and we did not ask for a tithe of income as with the church in Laredo. The "profit" from this church sale, a mere 10 percent, will neither bankrupt the church nor cause it to be unable to secure the services of another pastor. The hope of many of us in Mission Presbytery is that the funds acquired will be used to further our work among our Hispanic churches in the Valley of Texas, or will be used in one of our many new church development projects. In one final note about the issue of churches leaving the PCUSA, I would remind all of us, that as elders and ministers of Word and Sacrament, we vowed, before God, to abide by the polity of our denomination. A part of this polity is that all property, even for Chapter 8 congregations, is held in trust for the denomination. Not a single one of us was ordained by an independent church that had a right to come and go with its property. If we are to be those whose yes is yes and whose no is no, then we need to be willing to live with the vows that we made. I believe that the presbyters of Mission Presbytery fulfilled their vows appropriately, balancing their duties to the denomination, to the work of Faith Church and to the work of Christ's Kingdom. John Judson Another response to Earl C. Apel June 25, 2007 I read with great interest Mr. Apel's response [Letters, June 21, 2007], and have a few comments. In talking about how God's patience is not everlasting, I was attempting to make a point, that Mr. Apel seems to have missed, that we serve a God who is not the warm and fuzzy God many liberals spout about. Our God is a terrible and just God, one who wants to give good gifts to His children, but also is willing to discipline them when they step out of bounds. All He asks, really, is that we follow His commandments. If you would care to look up the conversation between Moses and God when Moses was receiving the Ten Commandments, you will see that God was ready to destroy all of the Israelites and start over again with Moses. Moses pleaded with God, and He relented. You can argue whether God knew that Moses would plead with Him or not, but the point is God was willing to destroy the entire nation because they were a stiff-necked people. I see too many similarities in our current culture. This nation was once blessed by God and was a light to the world in terms of missionaries, etc. Now, we are one of the largest recipients of missionaries from other countries. I do agree with Mr. Apel about the other sins he mentions in terms of our bodies being a holy temple, but he does not seem to want to add the act(s) of physical sexual relations between a man/man or woman/woman to the list. Again, a typical liberal tactic of saying, "Yes, I agree with you, but what about these other things?" I also agree that we, as Christians, complement each other. I think Paul put it best when he talked about the Church and its many parts. But, again, this does not address my main point of how a woman and a man complement each other in terms of marriage, sexual relations and parenting. (Of which the last, parenting, too many studies have shown that having a dad and mother is the best possible environment for raising kids.) Marc Karasek Has the PCUSA abandoned a faithful confession of Jesus as Lord? June 22, 2007 This question was raised on June 12, 2007, when the Presbyterian Church (USA) General Assembly's Office of Theology and Worship issued a five-page document, The Church's One Foundation Is Jesus Christ Her Lord. The document, with its attendant question (along with five other such questions), is offered as a direct response to the New Wineskins Association of Churches raising "significant questions about the faith and mission of the church that every Presbyterian should take seriously;" so seriously, in fact, that the cover letter introducing the document to Executive Presbyters and Stated Clerks comments:
Background Beaver-Butler Presbytery sent an Overture asking the 213th General Assembly, 2001:
Key Section The key section in which Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ speaks to the original overture put forward by Beaver-Butler Presbytery is lines 148-176. This is attested by the fact that The Church's One Foundation incorporates a direct quote of lines 155-168. The remaining portions of this key section, lines 148-154 and 169-176, are excerpts taken from the Second Helvetic Confession. The first (lines 148-154) is drawn from Chapter XI: OF JESUS CHRIST, TRUE GOD AND MAN, THE ONLY SAVIOR OF THE WORLD, paragraph: Jesus Christ Is the Only Savior of the World, and the True and Awaited Messiah; while the second (lines 169-176) is taken from Chapter I: OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURE BEING THE TRUE WORD OF GOD, paragraph: Inward Illumination Does Not Eliminate External Preaching (C-5.006-.007). The choice of this second excerpt for use in affirming that "Jesus Christ is the only Lord and Savior" (Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ, line 155) seems to invite confusion between the concept of God's ability to inwardly illuminate a sinner's heart to the saving power of Jesus Christ, apart from ever hearing the external preaching of this same good news, and the issue of whether one must receive and believe that good news of forgiving mercy and redeeming grace in Christ Jesus alone in order to come to salvation. It appears an especially puzzling choice when placed in juxtaposition against the prior passage cited from Chapter XI - a passage that never wavers in a direct march to this clear and unequivocal conclusion: "For however many seek salvation in any other than in Christ alone, have fallen from the grace of God and have rendered Christ null and void for themselves (Galatians 5:4)." Has the PCUSA abandoned a clear and unequivocal confession of Jesus Christ as Savior? Admittedly, this is a different question than that posed by the Office of Theology and Worship. However, it is a no less important question; a question that is naturally raised when the product of that office introduces a contextual confusion between the concepts of illumination and salvation. What is more, the simple observation that the two plain, pointed lines of the original Beaver-Butler overture ballooned to the 243 lines proffered in response by the Office of Theology and Worship also begs this same question. Below, the key section of Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ is presented alongside Jesus Christ Is the Only Savior of the World from the Second Helvetic Confession. Read and judge for yourself: Has the PCUSA abandoned a clear and unequivocal confession of Jesus Christ as Savior? Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ, lines 148-176:
Second Helvetic Confession, Chapter XI, paragraph: Jesus Christ Is the Only Savior of the World, C-5.077:
North Benton Presbyterian Church North Benton, Ohio Rogers' flawed logic June 22, 2007 The Rev. Dr. Jack Rogers' speech at the Spring President's Colloquium at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary is quoted:
The error of composition becomes clear if you lump together, say, the personality traits common to Pharisees, Gestapo officers and seminary professors; or patterns of violence among Vikings, Huns and Texans. The argument is specious precisely because those lumped together are not the same. By focusing on an identifiable pattern of prejudice among a list containing homosexuals – the real question is side-stepped: if there are differences between being African American, a woman or homosexual, then what are those differences and how do they bear on the question of prejudice. Being African American or female is clearly a matter of birth; being homosexual (specifically, acting out homosexual behavior), is not a birth issue. Even orientation-at-birth is an unproven assumption. The analogy is flawed: homosexuality does not belong in the list. Furthermore, by turning the focus onto the subject of prejudice per se, Rogers begs the question regarding homosexuality. "Homosexuality is good because bad people are prejudiced against it" is the spirit, if not the intention, of the argument. The issue at hand cannot be prejudice per se because not all prejudice is the same. Prejudice based on ignorance and lack of experience is always questionable, but it is possible to respond to something with disapproval, disfavor and denunciation based upon knowledge and experience and as an exercise of good judgment, wisdom or adherence to Scripture. Not all judgment is the same, so not all objection can be called prejudice. The logic is so bad the rest of the argument cannot stand. As C.S. Lewis once said: "If I'm given a bad cut of meat, I don't have to eat the whole thing to know that it is all bad." Noel K. Anderson Executive Pastor First Presbyterian Church Bakersfield, Calif. Response to Jack Rogers' address at Austin Seminary June 22, 2007 I am an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (USA). I have two degrees from a respected evangelical theological seminary (Gordon-Conwell). I used to endorse and work for our denomination's exclusion of self-avowed, practicing, gay and lesbian persons for ordination. After much study, discussion, arguing, questioning, praying – and getting to know my lesbian and gay sisters and brothers in Christ – I have changed my position on the ordination of gay and lesbian persons. It is time to hear what the Spirit is saying to the Church. It is time to open the door to all persons, regardless of their sexual orientation, who are committed to following Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Thank God for the witness and testimony of Jack Rogers. Rev. Dr. Andrew L. Cullen interim pastor Rolling Hills Presbyterian Church Overland Park, Kansas I don't buy Jack Rogers' argument at all June 22, 2007 I don't buy this at all. God didn't make people with sexual attraction for people of the same sex. It is a choice. It may not be recognized as a choice, but it is. There is no scientific evidence that people are born this way. They become this way because of where and how they live and because they make a choice to follow a sinful lifestyle. They can be forgiven when they confess and repent of their sins, just like anyone can be forgiven from any sin. The Holy Spirit can empower them to resist temptation to sin again. But don't just agree with the sinner that he is made that way and that we must accept his sinful behavior. God calls it "perverted" behavior and, because we keep changing the name of the sin to make it more acceptable, it doesn't sound so bad. What if the sin was bank robbery? Would we want active bank robbers running our churches if they had not confessed, repented, been forgiven and called on the Holy Spirit to keep them obedient to God? The idea that homosexual activity between committed, loving people is not a sin is totally non-Biblical and ridiculous. Fred Hoaglin Hilton Head Island, S.C. A response to Achtemeier and Rogers June 22, 2007 This is an excellent example of the theology of accommodation as taught from a loose-leaf Bible. Blessed are the saints who are equipped with the sound doctrines of T.U.L.I.P.! James E. Tuckett Pastoral concern for gays June 22, 2007 It seems clear to me that Paul shares Prof. Achtemeier's pastoral concerns, but he comes out opposite. See 1 Cor. 6:9-11, which incidentally but not incidentally is omitted from the Common Lectionary of the mainline churches. Mark fails to consider Paul's position there. Hugh Brom Where many churches and people really are June 22, 2007 The article about the First Presbyterian Church in Quincy, Ill., gives an excellent summary of where many churches and people are. Seeing that the General Assembly (read national staff) is not acting in a manner that demonstrates obedience to God's Word or our Reformed faith, they attempted to submit an overture to the 218th General Assembly to correct an error. After that failed, at the presbytery level, they move on after looking back at 25 years of the same old stuff. A brief look at the future says, "You haven't seen anything yet!" What else would a thinking, concerned person do in such a case? The mention of the those in the "middle" of the issue also is important. Can you guess at what would happen if those in the middle, in all of our churches, were informed of the direction in which we are headed? It would then be easier to just change the corporate name from Presbyterian Church (USA) to Evangelical Presbyterian Church. Their presbytery seems to have a good approach – hope others will see that. I pray for the vote on June 24th. God's will … will be done! Kermit Gay elder commissioner 217the General Assembly New Wineskins stepping out in faith June 22, 2007 It's great to see the New Wineskins step out in faith. They are working to maintain the unity of the Church of Jesus Christ, not the unity of a man-made organization. As Christians, we have to remember that our first priority belongs to the Kingdom of God, not a denomination. The leaders of the Presbyterian Church (USA) have failed to make that distinction and have done everything they can to further a failing organization. Without a deep look at itself and a recommitment to the Kingdom (and not itself), the PCUSA cannot stand. Bob Price Associate Pastor First Presbyterian Church Downers Grove, Ill. Sizeable minority of churches 'disturbed' at Heartland Presbytery policy June 21, 2007 As a member of the Hillsdale Presbyterian Church, I observed the all-day meeting of the Heartland Presbytery on June 17. I just wanted to report that there is an apparent sizeable minority of Presbyterian Church (USA) churches in the Heartland who are disturbed at the language in the committee on ministry-proposed administrative commission already reported in this medium. A subsidiary motion was made and a second proposal submitted and distributed from the floor, then the floor was opened for changes to the main motion from the committee on ministry. Changes were suggested that took out much of the more troublesome and threatening language, but would have allowed the same outcome. These were all voted down, but a substantial minority was in favor. The vote for the subsidiary motion to become the main motion also was voted down, but again a substantial minority was in favor. In the end, the main motion without change was approved by a substantial majority but, once again, a substantial minority voted no. Now, through all of this I was alarmed over several factors. First, the moderator displayed a continued annoying lack of understanding of Roberts Rules of Order and had to be continually directed by those on the podium about what to do. This added greatly to the confusion of the event. Secondly, the member of the committee on ministry presenting the background for the administrative commission made numerous charges, particularly about the Paola Church, some of which even other members of the committee on ministry disputed. The current pastor at Paola was not allowed to enter any sort of a defense to those charges made by the committee on ministry. Another greatly disturbing event was the vitriolic statements by a former pastor at Paola concerning the current pastor. This individual obviously has a personal vendetta against Pastor Kirk Johnston and is one of the members nominated by the committee on ministry for the administrative commission. This was such an obvious conflict of interest that a delegate not associated with either the Hillsdale or Paola churches attempted, near the end of the day, to have someone else replace this former pastor due to, as he put it, the probability of appeals of conflict of interest later in the procedure. He was informed by the moderator that this would require a complete reopening of this proposal since the nominations were part of the motion by the committee on ministry. Since most of the tortuous and vitriolic day had already been spent on this motion, he immediately backed down. This ruling, in and of itself, is questionable since nominations to something or another would seem to always be open since people come and go or for whatever reason cannot perform. On the positive side, it is apparent that even in this liberal presbytery there is a substantial minority who lean a different direction. The Women for Pro-Life alternatives were allowed a substantial time to address their activities and had a nice display. On the other hand, the abusive nature of the administrative commission and the fact that additional churches may be added at its own discretion is obviously stifling to any session members or pastors who may have doubts of any sorts. I can only imagine the distress of young pastors with large education debts who would like to go in a different direction. The inclusive, connectional, loving direction espoused by this denomination on the outside was proven to be a farce at this meeting. The meeting began with a fairly good sermon on love, which, while it did not contain a word of Scripture, was nonetheless moving. But once the main order of the day, the administrative commission, began to be considered, the entire loving nature went out the window. It really flew away once the former Paola pastor and member of the commission was allowed to repeatedly express his vitriolic personal disdain for the present Paola pastor. Well friends, if I ever had any doubts about the need to leave the PCUSA, and I have had them, they were settled at this meeting. John W. West Hillsdale, Kansas Thank God, it wasn't us June 21, 2007 Boy, am I glad that this woman is an Episcopalian and not one of our clergy. Whew! Dodged a bullet there, didn't we? Of course, this couldn't happen in the Presbyterian Church (USA) – could it? Of course it could. This sort of muddle-headed, apostate and dangerous pseudo-intellectual crud is all the rage among the chattering class of church leadership. "O, isn't it exciting." Did you note the comment by her bishop? "Redding's bishop, the Rt. Rev. Vincent Warner, says he accepts Redding as an Episcopal priest and a Muslim, and that he finds the interfaith possibilities exciting" (The Seattle Times). A Christian cannot claim the name and yet embrace a false religion that denies the divinity of Christ. How hard is that to understand? That this woman has not been removed from her priestly role is anathema. It is not, however, surprising in a church era wherein we are afraid to claim the name. Now, I can hear people all over the denomination trying to fool themselves into thinking that this wouldn't happen in the PCUSA. Baloney. It happens all the time. A church in Austin defiantly makes an atheist a member, presbyteries all over the country ordain outright universalists, minister members of this church defiantly refuse to obey church doctrine and perform marriages for same-sex couples. What's the difference? Don't feel too relieved, Presbyterians, it is only a matter of time 'til we find our own version of Ms Redding. Rev. Jim Yearsley Tampa, Fla. The EPC General Assembly June 21, 2007 It now seems a foregone conclusion that the Evangelical Presbyterian Church General Assembly will approve the New Wineskins non-geographic presbytery scheme. Now begins the real fireworks, as several Presbyterian Church (USA) congregations attempt to implement the plan. Actually, PCUSA officialdom based in Louisville, Ky., could, at this point, win a strategic public relations victory by simply saying to those congregations, "Go, brothers and sisters, with our blessing, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." Then, having demonstrated Christ-like character, they could devote their remaining resources on new church development. But they won't do that. Instead, they will spend large sums of money, hire lawyers, go to courts and slap injunctions on potentially dissident congregations. They will ex-communicate pastors, dissolve sessions, confiscate properties, records and assets. They will change the locks on church doors. In short, they will behave very much like the Gestapo. In so doing, they will discredit themselves in the eyes of many, and will exacerbate their 40-year-long decline. Attempting to cow congregations into compliance, they will simply blow the bottom out of their own boat. Of course, congregations that opt for the EPC will lose, too, as they must hire lawyers and/or reach some sort of buy-out agreement with their respective presbyteries. In the end, the only ones who will really win will be the lawyers. How sad. Oh, if only the Louisville potentates could accept the will of the people, they could at least minimize the damage. Larry Brown African Bible College Lilongwe, Malawi Another response to Mark Achtemeier June 21, 2007 In his address before the Spring President's Colloquium at Austin Theological Seminary, Professor Mark Achtemeier followed retired theology Professor Jack Rogers' lead in suggesting that perhaps a faithful reading of the Bible would lead one to believe that a faithful, monogamous homosexual relationship would be condoned by God. As his premise, Achtemeier draws a comparison between asking practicing homosexuals who are in a committed relationship with one another to break that relationship to asking a man (Achtemeier uses himself in this example) to leave his wife. "I would think (that for the church to ask me to leave my wife) was immoral and unfaithful." First, although it is generally immoral for the church to ask a man to divorce his wife, this principle must not be held to be absolute. After all, this is precisely what the Lord commanded of the Israelite men in Ezra's time who had taken pagan wives (Ezra 10.3). Just as the Israelites were wrong to take pagan wives (Dt. 7.3-4, II Cor. 6.14), so too are individuals wrong who establish sexual relationships – long term or otherwise – with individuals of the same gender. Second, a close or even intimate relationship between two people of the same gender is not in and of itself an evil. After all, the relationship between a father and his son, or between a mother and her daughter, or between brothers, or between sisters, or between two people unrelated to one another to form a close or intimate bond is certainly not forbidden by Scripture. After all, Jonathan son of Saul "made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul" (I Sam. 18.3). It is also not a sin for two unrelated men or two unrelated women to move into the same household, or for that matter to share the same bed. It is, however, a sin for two people of the same gender to engage in sexual relations, regardless of whether or not a committed relationship exists between them. Third, we have Jesus' commands, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments," (Jn. 14.15); "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven," (Mt. 5.17-19); "Whoever loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me," (Mt. 10.37); and, "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple" (Lk. 14.26). Following this logic, we start with the presupposition that we love Jesus. If we love Him, we will strive to keep His commandments, not in order to be saved but in thankfulness for His salvation of our souls upon the Cross. Moreover, Jesus claimed the whole of the Old Testament moral law to be in effect, which includes the Scriptural prohibitions against the practice of homosexuality. Thus, if we love Jesus, we will strive to keep not only any commandments He gave us directly in the four Gospels, but also all the moral law, for the Father and the Son are one and do not disagree, and it was the Triune God who gave us both the Old and the New Testament prohibitions against homosexuality. Thus, if we love Jesus, we will obey the Old Testament laws regarding sexual purity. Finally, if we were to love our wedded spouse more than Jesus, we would not be worthy to be His disciple, per His own testimony. How much more, then, are we condemned if we form an elicit sexual relationship forbidden in Scripture and presume to say that we are nonetheless acceptable as a disciple of Jesus. This is precisely the position that individuals who are in a homosexual relationship (committed or otherwise) find themselves in when they seek ordained office in the Church without repenting of that relationship: By their actions, they declare that they love their homosexual partner more than they love the Lord Jesus. They are therefore, by the testimony of Scripture, not worthy of being Jesus' disciples, let alone an ordained leader in His Church. Lastly, if we were to consult John Calvin on this matter, we would not find an ear sympathetic to the homosexual cause. First, Calvin wrote of homosexuals (arsenokoitai) in his Commentary on I Cor. 6.9-11: "The fourth description of crime is the most abominable of all – that monstrous pollution which was but too prevalent in Greece." Now, Calvin did not write extensively on homosexual practice, since it was not common in the 16th century, but regarding cohabitation, he wrote, "Hence, it is evident, that any mode of cohabitation different from marriage is cursed in his sight, and that the conjugal relation was ordained as a necessary means of preventing us from giving way to unbridled lust. Let us beware, therefore, of yielding to indulgence, seeing we are assured that the curse of God lies on every man and woman cohabiting without marriage" (Inst. II.8.41). We can be assured that he would not agree with Achtemeier's and Rogers' sophistry in defending supposedly committed, monogamous homosexual relationships. How, then, are we to treat practicing homosexuals who show up on the church's doorstep? We are to love them as Jesus would love them. We are to show them kindness and treat them graciously and mercifully. But we are not to let them think that their homosexuality is somehow acceptable to God, for while we must love them, we must also speak the truth to them in love (Eph. 4.15). And the truth that we must tell them is not the "truth" of Achtemeier and Rogers "that members of (their) longtime friends and colleagues did not want to hear," a false "truth" that would leave them in their sin and liable to the judgment of God, but the truth that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever" (Heb. 13.8) and that just as it was 2,000 years ago, He desires that all should come to repentance (II Pet. 3.9) and He is willing and able to deliver men and women from the penalty, power and ultimately the presence of sin, including the sin of homosexuality. Now, Achtemeier would leave them in the mindset that "deep in their hearts (they) do not believe there is any moral or practical possibility of their ceasing to be gay." But as the Lord Jesus Himself said, "With man, this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Mt. 19.26). Loren Golden Overland Park, Kansas Response to Marc Karasek June 21, 2007 Mr. Karasek [Letters, June 19, 2007] makes a remarkable statement in response to my letter noting that while God is merciful, God's patience is not everlasting. His references to the O.T. reminds me of a parent that loves the child, yet loses it (patience) and blisters the child with a good whipping. In other words, the parent has a momentary lapse of reason and emotion takes over for the worst. What I find interesting about all of this reasoning is God is more like a human with faults than the all-perfect, loving Creator. Often, liberals are noted as being "humanistic" and putting trust in humanity as being part of the overall God. Yet, it seems to me that others such as Mr. Karasek do the same thing in lowering God to having the same characteristics of humans that in the end aren't completely logical or consistent with perfect love. It seems to me both points of view have some flaws. On another note, some will claim the earth is millions of years old. Others say it is around six thousand years old. Regardless of the stand, God has been around all the time. Actually, no one debates that. Isn't that interesting and wonderful? So, if God has been around for a few thousand years or even millions, and considering that we humans only live a century at the most, isn't God quite patient for hanging around this long with us? We all know that most of us don't have that kind of patience with anyone. It is lucky that we make it past a day or two, let alone thousands of years. If God didn't have everlasting patience, we would never have had Jesus Christ sent from God just two thousand years ago. And we certainly don't know the end of time, as it is quite clear in the Bible that no human will know this. So, God could hang around for much longer than any of us expect. What human could really claim God has lost patience today or will in the near future? Isn't that insane? Mr. Karasek notes that our bodies are holy temples. I could not agree more, for in each temple is our soul. And the length of our soul's journey depends on how we treat the temple that holds it. I guess I stand corrected in how I said it didn't matter how we use our temple with fellow believers in their temples. It did occur to me that it is important to insure that we maintain the physical temple as much as our spiritual soul. This means that we do not engage in behavior that will ultimately destroy the temple. Some will say same-sex behavior destroys the temple – the most popular being getting AIDS when talking about gay men. Of course, lesbians get ignored in that debate being that AIDS isn't that relevant for them. Mr. Karasek notes the importance that we complement each other. But don't Christians do that anyway regardless of sexual behavior? Everyone is different and the differences build upon the strengths and gifts that each have and make up that wonderful vine or Body of Christ. Going back to destruction of the temple. The bottom line is in America we do a great job of destroying temples. Needless to say our eating habits, exercise habits, stress, etc., are quite obvious. Yet, we keep wallowing in our sin regardless of sexual orientation. The churches are just as guilty as any other institution. Just go to a potluck and watch the people (many overweight) overindulge and even make jokes about. On the one hand they are boasting about their sin, and on the other hand will talk about how pious they are. This is just one example of destroying the temple as they follow the path to heart disease, diabetes and other life-threatening ailments due to their persistent and un-repentant "sin" or "practice." And they simply continue to ignore this despite knowing the facts. Did God create male and female to indulge in this self-destructive behavior? I can't claim to be perfect about keeping my own temple in order in the area of eating, as well as other aspects of life. But the important thing is that I know Christ as Savior. In a sense, I think that makes the temple whole despite the cracks and weathering away that goes on with a fine old church building. Christ does complement me and that is the complement that really has any relevance for anyone. Knowing Christ as Savior is knowing perfect love. Again, that is my point. This perfect love is what counts in the end. Maybe Mr. Karasek and others won't understand this, but I'm grateful to know this as truth and reality for myself. This is also true for many other Christians – GLBT and heterosexual. Earl C. Apel member Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church Cincinnati, Ohio Did Mark Achtemeier listen to his mother's classes on Biblical theology? June 20, 2007 If, as it has been reported, Dr. Achtemeier truly asked, "Is this harvest of despair consistent with the ministry of Jesus, who broke bread with outcasts and promised life to all who trust in him?" – then I would respectfully suggest that he did not listen closely enough to what his mother had to say in her classes on Biblical theology. As Dr. Elizabeth Achtemeier often noted, it is most assuredly true that Jesus regularly broke bread with outcasts, and promised life to all who trust in Him. But she also went on to say that the Gospels inevitably highlighted outcasts such as Zaccheus who, having once been outcasts, repented of their outcast behaviors after having come into the presence of the Messiah. Nor can it accurately be said that the Presbyterian Church (USA) has ruled that self-identified homosexual persons are "categorically unqualified for ordination." Rather, the same standards of qualification are applied equally to both heterosexual and homosexual candidates for ministry: celibacy in singleness and faithfulness in marriage between one man and one woman. Will Dr. Mark Achtemeier, Jack Rogers and others now try to tell us that for 2,000 years the Church of Jesus Christ has been in error, and that Scripture really intended to bless same-sex marriages, but they just never got around to it? This is precisely where their line of reasoning leads us – toward accommodation of sin, rather than transformation of sinners. This is assuredly not the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that Drs. Paul and Elizabeth Achtemeier taught to hundreds of seminarians during their long, faithful and distinguished careers. Perhaps it is fair to say that, in the past, the Church has been inappropriately "homophobic," if such a word actually exists. Nonetheless, the remedy is not to become inappropriately "homophilic," which appears to be the aim of many in our tattered denomination. God hates sin. That's what Dr. Elizabeth Achtemeier taught me. But she also taught me that God loves, redeems and transforms sinners. This, rather than accommodation, should be our aim if we are to be faithful to Scripture. Jonathan Van Deventer Johns Island Presbyterian Church A response to Mark Achtemeier June 20, 2007 Seminary professor raises "unsettling questions." Yes, indeed! It is unsettling to see how far their scholarship has fallen in order to justify the lustful desires of today's society. Normally, I don't bother to read what Presbyterian Church (USA) seminarians have to offer, but a few points in Dr. Achtemeier's offering caught my attention. One was the observation that we have a pastoral problem. "Countless gay and lesbian persons showing up on the church's doorstep do not believe that there is any alternative path available to them other than the way they are on." Well, yes. And countless others show up struggling with all sorts of other problems that they don't want to let go of. Did your Jesus say that if your sinful desires are deeply imbedded and if they give you much pleasure, then they are OK? Mine didn't. "But to ask someone to renounce the possibility of life lived in nuptial communion with another, that is asking them to renounce a piece of their humanity that God has placed in all of us as a good and gracious gift." Wrong! Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the gift to wisely marry is given to everyone. Marriage is blessed, but many faithful servants do and should remain single. Let's see, what was Paul's wife's name? Society is now more tolerant of sin, now that is a fact. But does that mean that God is more tolerant? Yes? Maybe? No? Finally, "God is at work among us." Indeed, indeed, but so is Satan. Whom, then, should we serve? John Cowan Cartersville, Ga. Why should we care about the Washington Office's ranting? June 20, 2007 And we should care what the Washington Office says because…? Ken Tazelaar First Presbyterian Church Waukegan, Ill. The red coats are coming June 20, 2007 In these many years following the Reformation, it is hard to find instances of Protestants returning to the ugly polemics of European bishops – enter Heartland Presbytery's recent proposal. The Roman Catholic church at its very worst was characterized by this same lust for power and control over property. We are now seeing a major marker in the total breakdown of Presbyterianism – a strategy to oust dissenting clergy in order to control congregations and property. On the surface, they appear to be the good and faithful Presbyterians, loyal to the denomination and its continued empowerment. Underneath, we now see something like fearful desperation – a seething paranoia expressed in legislation geared to clampdown on dissenters and to remove ministers of the Word and sacrament from the equation. No one leaves unless we kick them out. Trust is clearly gone, and the response is rank authoritarianism. Like a captain on a sinking slave vessel, they want their subjects lashed to the masts and chained to the oars. Unable to save themselves, they become a danger to anyone within reach. The bet they raise is founded upon intimidation, as though Presbyterians are made of such slack stuff as to simply cower and give in, or sell their souls to the secular authority of a shrinking denomination. Loyalism is not always good (think "Red Coats"). In the case of Heartland Presbytery's proposed clampdown, it looks like desperation, paranoia and a way to chain evangelicals to the oars. If so, it is worse than unwise or ill-advised; it is wicked, and merits no more attention than our loathing will bear. Noel K. Anderson Executive Pastor First Presbyterian Church Bakersfield, Calif. Another view about Memorial Park Presbyterian Church's vote to leave PCUSA June 20, 2007 I am a member of Memorial Park Presbyterian Church and I disagree with the vote to leave the Presbyterian Church (USA). I understand that there are differing opinions in the denomination; the history of religion is filled with change. Churches splitting off is something that is a recurrent theme and is to be expected. I respect everyone's right to express their faith and recommend leaving the denomination. Preventing these initiatives would be wrong, in my opinion. Voting to leave the denomination is a serious matter. Information from all sides should be presented to congregations wishing to leave for their consideration. In the case of Memorial Park Church, the moderator of the discussion meetings was himself the moderator of the group that has started the conversation to leave the denomination, the New Wineskins. It is an extreme conflict of interest to have the moderator of the New Wineskins also serve as the moderator of the meetings to discuss separation. The meetings had no chance of being impartial, showing information from both sides so information could be considered in a non-prejudiced environment. Memorial Park Church will argue that opposing opinions were permitted by the Pittsburgh Presbytery. This was about one hour in comparison to the months/years of prejudicial statements put in the church bulletins, status of the denomination announcements, which were one-sided. The vote: Sisters and brothers, a vote was conducted, yes. However, so much planning was done to seed the environment of the vote. Prayer warriors were imported to pray only that the vote would pass. Claims were made that visions from God were seen. Anyone who did not agree was intimidated by a media-frenzy environment. While churches have the right to start separation initiatives, here are my comments regarding how this should be conducted:
Although it has been a difficult experience for anyone who does not agree, I have no doubt whatsoever that God is still present at Memorial Park Church. Despite the fact that I do not agree, there have been some very kind Christ-based voices that speak loudly that Christ's message of love is in the church. I am not against churches separating from the denomination. However, it is my view that the PCUSA needs to promote an equal environment so all opinions can be equally heard in church discussions in a non-prejudicial environment. Carol Joan Schaef member Memorial Park Presbyterian Church McCandless, Pa. It's comforting to realize that the PCUSA is 'the true church' June 19, 2007 Gee, I thought churches had all the resources needed in the Bible. How naive of me! Also, it is most comforting to realize that the Presbyterian Church (USA) is "the true church" and that we are members of it. Those poor, misguided buggers who have left the PCUSA to join "untrue churches." As for seeking help from Louisville and its minions, perhaps the best counsel I can give is for Kirkpatrick and Valentine to resign, retire and get lost. Art Montgomery elder (inactive) Santa Barbara, Calif. |
|
| June
2007 letters, page 2 Home · News · PLC Publications · The Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |