November 2007 letters Archives of letters to the editor

Why doesn't Louisville stand up for anything associated with God? November 30, 2007 God knows that we need to get back to God! Let's push the pledge of our flag – in God we trust. Why does Louisville not stand up for and speak out to protect anything associated with God? Margaret Freeburg Huntingdon, Pa. A reply to the letter by Russ Westbrook November 30, 2007 Is it all right if I use the same logic [Letters, November 29, 2007] to assume that all conservatives – such as Fred Phelps, Osama Bin Laden, Eric Rudolph and you – believe the same things and follow the same creed? Meghan Foote Greeley, Colo. 'I hope and pray that Atlanta Presbytery learns a lesson' from Timberridge case November 29, 2007 Let me first state for the record that the following is my personal viewpoint and is not meant to represent anyone's opinion but my own. The last time I woke up in the country, we still had a few freedoms. Unless something has changed, we all have the right and the freedom to attend any meeting or conference concerning any religion in this country without persecution, whether it be New Wineskins, Atlanta Presbytery or even some cult following (Note: I'm not implying or associating any group as a cult, just making a point). It's the pompous and arrogant attitude that the Atlanta Presbytery has adopted that has driven a wedge between it and the members of Timberridge Presbyterian church. What started out as a quest to secure a property deed turned into a David and Goliath tale. The leadership of the Presbytery of Greater Atlanta, which tried to bully a small country church by using the excuse that its pastor was not fulfilling his vows of upholding the peace and unity of the denomination, tried stopping the church leaders from trying to keeping the property that is rightfully theirs. (Read "The Louisville Papers" – Atlanta Presbytery is following the procedure verbatim). So what if the pastor visited a Wineskins conference? So what if other church members attend a Wineskins conference? If Atlanta Presbytery wants to single out the Rev. Allison for that, they better check out who else attended, as well. I'm sure their witch hunt would grow quite significantly. Atlanta Presbytery's reactions leave me to believe that they're afraid of something and are acting over-defensively. I have been a member of Timberridge for over 25 years and have served my church as a deacon for three years and as an elder for nine years. I have attended many presbytery meetings. I am saddened at how things have devolved over the past 20 years. Political correctness seems to have overridden the Word of God in many cases. But that's another road I won't go down at this time. My point is that this whole fiasco could have been avoided if the Atlanta Presbytery had not acted like a bully. They say we rebuffed them. We did, under advisement of our attorneys. Read "The Louisville Papers." If we had told them we were trying to secure the ownership of our property, a commission would have been immediately formed, they would have removed the pastor and leadership and taken the property, simple as that. Atlanta Presbytery will deny that this would have happened. I believe it would have, as it's happened in other parts of this country. Timberidge has a long history going back before the Civil War. Timberridge has always paid its own way. We have never received any financial help from anyone other than our members and friends. I don't believe Timberridge wants to be a forerunner for some of the other 109 churches under Atlanta Presbytery that are sitting back watching and waiting to see how it all turns out. When we voted this past Sunday to disaffiliate from the Presbytery of Greater Atlanta, we all knew the consequences. We knew we could lose everything we've built and invested in. We would have never voted to leave had we not been forced into a corner by the actions and attitude of the Atlanta Presbytery. The 200-plus members who voted together are Timberridge Church, whether we're in that same building or not. We don't know where we'll meet if the court decision goes against us, but we'll meet somewhere. God will provide that for us if need be. I hope and pray that Atlanta Presbytery learns a lesson from this. I pray that they learn that continued pompous and arrogant attitudes toward the people that support them will cause them to lose more members from a denomination that's losing more and more members nationwide each year. I pray that God's will be done. Ken Waller Church trustees owe no duty to the presbytery November 29, 2007 In the course of my representation of a number of churches, I have observed that one difficult part in the education of churches and presbyteries has been to make clear the difference between the congregation (an ecclesial body) and the corporation (a jural creation of the state). Assuming that Timberridge is incorporated, the document requests of Greater Atlanta Presbytery are an interesting example of the confusion that many folks have in that regard. The presbytery purports to authorize an administrative commission, a creation of the ecclesial presbytery, to demand that the trustees of the corporation hand over to the administrative commission: "[T]he minutes of ... the trustees. ... "[A]ny correspondence from the ... the trustees ... to the congregation. "[A]ny correspondence between any of the above-mentioned bodies." One must wonder: Under what theory does the administrative commission or the presbytery have the right to unilaterally obtain the records of a Georgia corporation? The trustees owe no duty to the presbytery. In fact, their fiduciary duty flows to the corporation only. Providing proprietary documents to an entity whose interests are clearly adverse to the corporation and its members would be a classic example of breach of fiduciary duty. I am aware of at least one instance in which an administrative commission attempted to assume original jurisdiction by removing the pastor and session and then wrote to the Board of Trustees "directing" it to immediately withdraw its suit to quiet title to its property. The board promptly wrote back, reminding the administrative commission that it was the Board of Directors of a [state] corporation and was answerable only to the corporation. That was the correct response. The case soon settled. It was the Presbyterian Church (USA) and its predecessors that demanded that congregations resort to the protection of the states and form corporations. Having done so, those corporations are now asked by the PCUSA and its presbyteries to act as if no such action was taken. They have no authority over those corporations and they need to remember that. One final thought about the Timberridge situation. The administrative commission is empowered to "investigate any contact by the pastor or church with the movement called 'New Wineskins.' This would include investigating any attendance at New Wineskins events or conferences." Oh, my. Beware that slippery slope. The "movement called 'New Wineskins'" is actually an incorporated association, the New Wineskins Association of Churches. It is one of many such associations and organizations made up of churches and pastors who seek some particular change in the PCUSA. Obviously, Louisville and its minions do not care much for the one renewal organization that has moved past the decades-old "talk about it" stage to the "do something" stage. They view NWAC as a bunch of troublemakers who are disrupting their realm. Hence, one part of the PCUSA's response plan is to retaliate against pastors and congregations that have looked at or participated in New Wineskins. That is probably not the precedent that they want to establish. There are at least as many folks in the PCUSA who view members of other groups - groups that year after year attempt to thwart the will of the majority through repetitive attempts to amend the Book of Order's ordination standard – as equally or even more disruptive. Do Greater Atlanta Presbytery and the PCUSA really want to set the precedent for prosecuting pastors and congregations that support, e.g., the Covenant Network, TAMFS or More Light Presbyterians? A slippery slope, indeed. Michael R. 'Mac' McCarty Ramming her beliefs down our throat November 29, 2007 As a member of the Presbyterian Church (USA), which celebrates its status as a connectional church – which means that what is done or proclaimed by part of the church is done by the whole – I was stunned by this comment from the news article about the notorious so-called homosexual evangelist Janie Sphar (for whom I have coined the word "kakangelist," meaning bearer of bad news that contradicts the Gospel of Jesus Christ): "'Nobody has anything but admiration for Janie Spahr,' says Stephen Taber, a San Francisco lawyer representing the presbytery and prosecuting the case against Spahr." Wrong! Don't you dare speak for me, Stephen Taber. I am a PCUSA minister and I have nothing but contempt for someone who has taken vows to uphold and be guided by our Constitution, yet openly and willfully violates not only our standards, but the very Word of God on which they are built. The woman lacks enough integrity to resign her ordination in an organization whose standards she cannot uphold, while insisting on ramming her beliefs down our throat and bringing scandal on the Church of Jesus Christ. May the day come when God's faithful people will rise up and say, "Enough is enough" and cast out the pagans, perverts and prevaricators among us. Rev. Bill Pawson Westminster Community Church Canton, OH A reply regarding electing commissioners to general assembly November 29, 2007 Regarding the letter by Donna Rickey [Letters, November 28, 2007]: Unless the bylaws of her presbytery specifically state that the nominated commissioners cannot be asked questions before election, they can be asked questions. Questions may always be asked of candidates. Where one might cross the line is if one asks the candidates how they will vote on a particular issue. The candidate may be asked their current opinion or position on an issue. Further nominations from the floor are always in order. The presbytery executive has no power to say what can or cannot be done on the floor of presbytery. A presbytery executive is an employee of the presbytery. He/she is not an officer of the presbytery. We give presbytery executives entirely too much power by our assumptions about what the executive's job entails. It is the moderator who has the power to rule on such a question. The stated clerk, as parliamentarian, can be asked her opinion. The body may overrule the moderator. Given what Ms Rickey said about worship at her presbytery, and the political climate, I think she has a hard row to hoe in her presbytery. Robert Campbell pastor Tully Memorial Presbyterian Church Sharon Hill, Pa. A reply to the letter by Larry Brown on Barth and Busch November 29, 2007 When I saw the headline given to the interview of Eberhard Busch, I knew that there would be all sorts of misunderstandings. First, however, readers need to know that Eberhard Busch was the last secretary Karl Barth had and, furthermore, wrote the definitive biographical work on Barth that is well worth reading and owning. When Busch stated that we do not believe in the Bible but in God, he was not attempting to undermine the authority of Scripture. I have heard Busch lecture on the nature of preaching and his point was that we should preach expositionally from the Bible on the basis of the lectio continua method (in other words, through whole books of Scripture rather than in snippets of Scripture handed to us by the lectionary). In further conversation with Busch, I found that his preferred title as a minister is VDM, the old abbreviation used to designate one as a minister. It stands for the Latin, Verbi Dei Minister, or minister of the Word of God. When Busch states that we do not believe in the Bible, but in God, he is not trying to deflate the Bible. Indeed, in the Apostle and Nicene Creeds the one in whom we confess our faith is the Triune God. When Scripture is referenced in both the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, it is to state that our faith is in accordance with Scripture. Again, something that Busch has and does emphasize. However, creedally, we confess that our faith in is the Triune God, and thus our belief in the authority of Scripture flows from the reality of the Triune God. Thus, a "liberal" reading of Busch's statement would not be fair to him. While I often appreciate the perspectives and comments of Larry Brown [Letters, November 28, 2007], I must take issue with his remark that, "It seems to me that all he [Barth] really did was rediscover and repackage 18th century deism, with its 'clock winder God.'" While there are aspects of Barth's theology that I do not agree with, a remark like this makes me wonder how much of Barth that Dr. Brown has studied. That remark is patently absurd and unfair. Rev. Walter L. Taylor pastor Oak Island Presbyterian Church Oak Island, N.C. Liberalism a 'non-Christian movement seeking to cannibalize and replace Christianity' November 29, 2007 During my days among the Christian Churches/Church of Christ (I attended one of their colleges), I was assured over and over again that - unlike us Calvinists - they had no creed. That, of course, was nonsense; they did indeed have a creed, it was just that no one had ever written it down anywhere. When every CC/CoCer I ever ran into held exactly the same view on things like baptism, the order of grace and faith, divine foreknowledge, the authority of the Scriptures, etc., and often even expressed these views in exactly the same words, it was obviously a creedal movement. And well it should have been. Any movement by definition requires a coherent worldview to hold it together and give it impetus. Liberalism is a movement. It is a non-Christian movement seeking to cannibalize and replace Christianity (rather than a variant creed within Christian ranks, like the Campbellite "Restoration Movement"), but it is a movement. And, as such, it does indeed have an inner coherent creed. Mrs. Foote [Letters, November 27, 2007] seems to suggest that liberalism lacks a unified worldview and that I am "creating a straw man" when I affirm it does indeed have one – one that all its adherents conform to and operate from, and defines such things as truth, fantasy, good, evil, etc. Personally, I think such a disingenuous claim has less to do with the hay in Iowa as it does with that which with we fertilize our fields. No organized movement can survive without a creed, and liberalism definitely has one. I think it would be an interesting exercise if we here [in the letters section of] The Layman Online were to pool our thoughts and write out liberalism's creed. This would be a serious endeavor; although Mrs. Foote seems to see them behind every tree, we should avoid creating "straw man" propositions and putting them in the mouth of our tormentors. Rather, we should simply expose to the light what they really do believe and teach, and let such vile filth be seen for what it really is. To begin the project, I would point out that, within the body of the religion proper, there are two variant creeds, but both built on the same naturalistic worldview. One is objectivist, rooted in the modernist school of thought, while the other is subjectivist, rooted instead in post-modernism. Rev. Russ Westbrook, teaching elder Riverside Presbyterian Church, PCA 'Who do you say Jesus is?' November 28, 2007 I just read the interview with Eberhard Busch in which he quoted Karl Barth as saying, "We don't believe in the Bible. We believe in God." Well, Paul did say in Romans 1 that creation affirms that there is a God, so men are without an excuse. But then, who do you say Jesus is? C.S. Lewis observed that Jesus is ether a liar, a lunatic, or else exactly who He said He was. Some modern theologians drive a wedge between the Christ of faith and the Christ of history. But if Jesus is not "fully God and fully man (Council of Chalcedon, AD 451)," why continue with any semblance of Christianity? And what did Jesus say about Scripture? His answer to the Sadducees: "Are you not in error not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God?" (Mark 12:24) was typical. He consistently answered His critics with Scripture, knowing that both they and He took them to be authoritative and reliable. His enemies never accused Him of misusing Scriptures or of having too high a view of them. And so, Jesus (assuming He really is divinity) either: 1. was right about the nature of Scripture, or 2. knew they were human writings, but accommodated Himself to the prevailing belief system of the day, or 3. He emptied Himself of the knowledge that they contained error when He became man. To my way of thinking, those who discredit the Bible dishonor Jesus, of whom the Bible speaks. Those who go to church, but neither believe in the Bible nor the full deity of Jesus, may be wonderful human beings, as human beings go, but they should be brutally honest with themselves, stop playing church and become Buddhists, Druids or anything other than Christians. I know that Barth is considered to be the most important theologian of the 20th century, but it seems to me that all he really did was rediscover and repackage 18th century deism, with its "clock winder God." I also know that we evangelicals often are accused of "bibliolotry." But going back to Paul: "Although they (humanistic philosophers) claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles (Romans 1:21-24)." By the way, in v. 27, Paul revealed himself to be a "homophobe." But, of course, that gets explained away using the most tortured of hermeneutics. There really is nothing new under the sun. Larry Brown African Bible College Lilongwe, Malawi A reply regarding presbytery representation November 28, 2007 It was refreshing to read your article about questioning the commissioners to general assembly. I raised the question to my presbytery executive and was told there would be no opportunity to question the commissioners before the vote. The only way that we could do that is to change the rules before the next general assembly. I have just recently begun the fight to try to open up presbyteries to the members of churches. It seems that those who have been on the same committees for years try to keep others out … especially when your views differ from theirs. I was shocked a couple of presbytery meetings ago when a woman minister prayed to Mother God. No one seemed to be upset by this action. Please continue to print articles of this nature. Donna Rickey A response to the letter by Jennifer Kirkbride November 28, 2007 Jennifer Kirkbride [Letters, November 21, 2007] makes what seems at first glance a good point regarding the importance of having both the Word of God and the Holy Spirit involved in making important decisions. Her thought was in response to a remark made by Anita M. Cummings regarding discernment that will take place in the case of Paul Capetz being reinstated. Ms. Krikbride made the following comment: "You have to have both, it being "according to the Word of God" and "the leading of the Holy Spirit." This is where the progressives err and bring heresy to our denomination. "May God continue to bless His Word and may it continue to be foremost in any discernment process that our denomination undertakes. " Ms. Kirkbride correctly stated that the Book of Order notes: "A church reformed, always reforming, according to the Word of God and the leading of the Holy Spirit." I decided to take a look at the latest version of the Book of Order since I haven't read that for a couple of years. I will share what I find of interest. First of all, Ms. Kirkbride uses the term "His Word," whereas the Book of Order says consistently "his Word." The difference is in the capitalization of the word "his." A few other writers in your forum also use "His Word." It may seem a small detail but, in reading the text, I realize how it does make a difference in how one would pronounce the phrase and even interpret it. A good reference in the Book of Order is G-1.0301(a) that states: "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship." The opening of our Book of Order (G-1.0100) correctly puts things into perspective in stating: "All power in heaven and earth is given to Jesus Christ by Almighty God, who raised Christ from the dead and set him above all rule and authority, all power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. God has put all things under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and has made Christ Head of the Church, which is his body." Note that power has not been given exclusively to any writings or what we refer to as Scriptures or the Bible. In fact, the Book of Order, I think, makes it clear that Jesus is the Word by this following statement regarding the Confessions in G-2.0200: "These confessional statements are subordinate standards in the church, subject to the authority of Jesus Christ, the Word of God, as the Scriptures bear witness to him." Note that the Scriptures are a witness to Christ, who is the Word. The Scriptures are not "The Word" or "His Word." Witnesses are those who observed and tell what they saw and experienced. Witnesses are not the literal recordings, but second parties. Yet, their accounts, of course, are important. Note that G-2.0200 also includes: "The church affirms "Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda;" that is, "The church reformed, always reforming," according to the Word of God and the call of the Spirit. About Scripture, refer to W-2.2001, which states: "The church confesses the Scriptures to be the Word of God written, witnessing to God's self-revelation. Where that Word is read and proclaimed, Jesus Christ the Living Word is present by the inward witness of the Holy Spirit." Note that the Word includes Scriptures left to us by human witnesses. Word also includes the Living Word, Jesus Christ, through a witness not of this earth – the Holy Spirit. W-2.2008 states: "The Word is also proclaimed through song in anthems and solos based on scriptural texts, in cantatas and oratorios which tell the biblical story, in psalms and canticles, and in hymns, spirituals, and spiritual songs which present the truth of the biblical faith. Song in worship may also express the response of the people to the Word read, sung, enacted, or proclaimed. Drama and dance, poetry and pageant, indeed, most other human art forms are also expressions through which the people of God have proclaimed and responded to the Word. Those entrusted with the proclamation of the Word through art forms should exercise care that the gospel is faithfully presented in ways through which the people of God may receive and respond." Note that "Word" is capitalized, whereas "biblical" is not. W-1.1004 makes distinctions in what "Word" includes: "Scripture – the Word written, preaching – the Word proclaimed, and the Sacraments - the Word enacted and sealed, bear testimony to Jesus Christ, the living Word. Through Scripture, proclamation, and Sacraments, God in Christ is present by the Holy Spirit acting to transform, empower, and sustain human lives." G-1.0100 (c) says it best, I think: "Christ gives to his Church its faith and life, its unity and mission, its officers and ordinances. Insofar as Christ's will for the Church is set forth in Scripture, it is to be obeyed. In the worship and service of God and the government of the church, matters are to be ordered according to the Word by reason and sound judgment, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit." Note that "Scripture" and "Word" are used here implying, I think, that they have two separate meanings. In fact, I didn't see any clear evidence in our constitution where "Scripture" and "Word" are one and the same. Rather, "Word" includes other aspects that are important. In closing, I think this is very important to remember. Yes, there are differences between how conservatives and liberals express their faith in Jesus Christ. However, the bottom line is they both have faith in Jesus Christ. The Book of Order makes it quite clear that Jesus Christ is the foundation of our faith and our denomination. And, contrary to popular belief, liberals do not throw the Bible in the garbage can as though it no longer has any relevance. We may not refer to it as "His Word," but it is not accurate to claim that we don't consider it to be part of "Word." Ms. Kirkbride notes that we liberals err and are bringing heresy to our denomination. Well, per the Book of Order, I don't quite see it that way, although I do believe being labeled a heretic is not all that bad. It does challenge one to continue to take a look at where one is on the journey of faith with Jesus. Needless to say, no one is perfect and, in the end, we are all basically heretics at one time or another. Otherwise we would be the same as God, which is a heresy, is it not? Earl C. Apel member Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church Cincinnati, Ohio 'What matters is that it is God's church, doing God's work' November 27, 2007 I am sorry to see the Presbyterian Church (USA) losing another large, faithful church, such as Bay Presbyterian Church. I always hope our friends and colleagues would find a way to remain among us and continue working beside us for much-needed denominational transformation. However, it appears that, without a doubt, a sizable majority in this congregation seeks a change and so I wish these brothers and sisters well as they go about it. I would hope, as well, that the Presbytery of Western Reserve would be able to accomplish two things: 1) Do its math graciously. I'm sure the reason the presbytery instituted a high quorum and a supermajority for such votes was to ward off the scenario of a small faction hijacking a large church. If a congregation is going to make such a major decision, there is wisdom and stability in large numbers of the members making that decision. And it appears that Bay Presbyterian Church has more than met that criterion. If two-thirds of the members had been at the meeting and if three-fourths of those at the meeting had voted to realign their congregation, that would have been 1,036 votes to realign. Well, just under two-thirds of the members attended the meeting, but 91 percent voted to realign. That meant there were 1,196 votes to realign, which is 160 votes more than the presbytery had required. Bay Presbyterian actually tallied 115 percent of the presbytery minimum vote. Or, put another way, in order to cast serious doubt on the realignment, the presbytery had required a minority vote of at least 345 members (at least 25 percent of two-thirds of the congregation, which would be just 16.7 percent of the membership). But only 113 members voted against realigning, which was less than a third of the already-small minority that the presbytery had established in its guidelines. Thus, quite obviously, Bay Presbyterian Church has met the presbytery's voting requirements. 2) Take a Kingdom approach. The whole idea of congregations is to reach out with the Good News of Jesus Christ, to care for the needy and spiritually nurture the saints, and to cooperate with God in the extension of his reign, the Kingdom of God. The whole idea of a denomination is to help the churches do that better. So, here's a dynamic congregation actually doing the work of ministry. Why – other than shortsightedness, narrow parochialism or petty possessiveness – would a presbytery want to get in the way of a congregation doing effective ministry? Why cripple the good work of a congregation in a misguided effort merely to retain control? Whether that congregation gets counted as a PCUSA church or an EPC church really doesn't matter. What matters is that it is God's church, doing God's work. James D. Berkley Director of Presbyterian Action Bellevue, Wash. In support of Rev. Seng's comments November 27, 2007 This is in support of Rev. Seng's comments [Letters, November 21, 2007]. The negative effects of the "let's tear down their faith so they can build it up" approach to religious instruction in Presbyterian Church (USA) institutions is nothing new. I was thrown for a loop by it way back in September of 1960 at Hanover College. I think it was the first day of my first class in religion – Survey of the Old Testament – that my doctorate-possessing professor had the 15-to-20 of us sitting in a circle. He proceeded to ask us each, in turn, something like, "Upon what do you base your faith?" No matter what the response – and most were solid, conservative, Bible-honoring Christian replies – he would respond such as, "Well, I don't know if you would want to base your faith on that because. …" By the time the class was over, just about everything we had been taught about God, Jesus and the Bible in our home churches was in a shambles on the floor. When a doctoral-possessing professor tells green freshmen and sophomores that what you were taught by well-meaning mommies and daddies and Sunday school teachers was, in essence, so much uninformed hooey, it makes an impact that doesn't strengthen faith. It's like learning the "truth" about Santa, et. al., all over again. Just another fairy tail. Been hoodwinked again. Then, of course, one goes on to learn that the Bible wasn't written by those whom the Bible says it was written by, that it wasn't written when it was supposed to have been, that many of Daniel's prophetic passages were written after the fact …, I could go on, but you know the drill. I think the thing that now galls me the most is that many years later, after having spent a number of years wandering in the atheist's wasteland, is finding out that even before I was in college conservative Biblical scholars had already provided sound reasons to counter higher criticism and the documentary hypothesis. I doubt that this information is made available even today in the denominational colleges and seminaries. Would it not be so much better to show students the reasons that they can believe and trust their Bible as being what is, the very written Word of God, extremely close to the original autographs and trustworthy down to the word, jot and tittle? I'll bet other denominations do, and that those which do are growing. Our denomination is dying because we don't follow the instruction book. Christ talked to a number of churches in Revelation and warned them to get back to basics or He would pull the lamp stand. Maybe we need to take that to heart. I have been in this denomination or its predecessors, more on than off, since the mid-50s and it's the same stuff, year after year. We spend so much time arguing among ourselves that we don't have the time or energy or joy to spread the Good News that Jesus Christ really is the Son of God, who came to earth in the flesh and paid the price for our sins so we can be united with Him and God the Father in His presence, and that there is going to be a Second Coming when thing are going to get a lot better for believers, but that those who aren't believers are going to have a serious problem. Our responsibility is to witness to what Christ has done and show the world how the Gospel is the Good News – that God has cleared the way to Himself and to be able so show those of no or other faiths that they don't have to work their way to God or to perfection or whatever. Jesus did it. We just need to accept it. But that does include the need to recognize that the Bible is what it says it is, the Word of God, and that God is smart enough to be able to communicate in language that He intended. No hidden meanings, just a plain language interpretation works well. What the Bible calls sin is sin. If we could figure that out, a lot of the current problems would go away. But they won't because some are like the terrorists in Iraq in that they won't recognize that the battle was fought and the other side won. No, they 'gotta' go on and on and on dragging the whole denomination through this stuff year after year. I fear the result is that much time that could have been spent evangelizing is being wasted. Many who could have heard won't have heard because we are spinning our wheels, and we will be like the watchmen on the wall who failed to sound the alarm. The blood of those who perish may well be on our heads. Melvin W. Hansen elder First Presbyterian Church of DuPage Bolingbrook, Ill. A response regarding marriage November 27, 2007 I read with such amazement of those wanting to eliminate marriage, which is a covenant between and one man and one woman, and substituting a covenant between two people. Which two people? A man and a man? A woman and a woman? A he/she to a she/he? Transgendered? A cross dresser? Can the session of Govans Presbyterian Church define what is meant by a covenant between two people? Can the same session give Biblical authority to the same? Can the same session give book, chapter and verse for such an overture? I thought so – the session of Govans Presbyterian Church cannot since the same session did not cite book, chapter and verse. To the session of Govans Presbyterian Church, where is your authority? There is a place for those who seek to destroy marriage described in Revelation 20 and 21. How these people are so blind, led by their father, the devil, and these people are no less different than the religious leaders of Christ's day, white tombstones. Liberalism of this flavor contradicts God's purpose of marriage, and of whom marriage has been designed, one man and one woman. Nothing else. End of story. Louis Stephen Nowasielski Wilmington, Del. 'I've never been so embarrassed to be Presbyterian' November 27, 2007 I can't help but wonder what the rest of the world thinks as it less-than-occasionally glances the church's way to see what it's up to. "Yep … still up to the same old stuff. They're so busy arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin that it only confirms my suspicion that they have nothing life-changing to share with me." As Reggie McNeal said recently, "The world is looking for God, and we give them church." To which the world responds with a collective, "Thanks, but no thanks!" To which many life-long Christians are even now saying, "Thanks, but no thanks!" "But we're getting our own house in order! We can't abide by that godless bureaucratic bunch in Louisville that makes it hard for us to be a faithful people! Once the world sees that we're not one of those liberal, open-minded, gay-loving congregations – and actually break away from the like – non-Christians will flock to our doors, and Jesus will be happier with us! You'll see! That's why our denomination has been sliding into numerical oblivion!" So, one by one, our "faithful" congregations are pulling out of the denomination, decrying the attempts by lawyers in Louisville to make it difficult to depart with the property. Of course, no one on the side of the "faithful" would ever do anything so underhanded as attempting to find ways around the Book of Order's longstanding by-laws, or the rationale behind them. And heaven forbid that The Layman should in any way misrepresent those letters by cherry-picking portions of the entire text. Never! We're the "faithful ones!" It sure is a good thing that we "faithful" ones can look Jesus straight in the eyes and say, "We've never lied, cheated, stolen, used your name in vain, committed adultery, been gluttonous, materialistic, greedy, or arrogant, neglected the needs of the poor, taken advantage of others, walked by brothers and sisters in need, hated a brother or sister, failed to bless and pray for our enemies, and stuff." Yep, we're a moral bunch and we have the moral authority to bolt in such a way. In fact, we're so sure of our cause that we don't even have to talk with the people our stances will exclude. With the risk of sounding like a Dixie Chick (fortunately, I have no CDs to stomp on), I've never been so embarrassed to be Presbyterian for reasons that have nothing to do with Louisville. Tom Patterson Seattle, Wash. Christians are being persecuted November 27, 2007 There is an active conspiracy to persecute Christians and expunge Christian religion from public life. Since Biblical times, followers of Jesus Christ have often suffered and been put to death. In modern times, Christians have been persecuted, even killed, for being in the wrong country. Even in our own country, this conspiracy manifests itself by public policy. The supreme court of a certain state has ruled that the two-parent heterosexual marriage is no longer the law of the land. Another state has already passed laws that openly promote homosexual, bisexual, transgender and other deviant lifestyles. One of its bills prohibits the funding of programs that do not support deviant sexual practices. Also, a U.S. District Court rules that "One Nation Under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. There is even a "Christian" denomination that persecutes those who want to be obedient to the Word of God. It is the Presbyterian Church (USA). Last year, it defied the Biblical mandate regarding sexual behavior. Ordination of homosexuals is now permissible. Those churches that are leaving or want to leave the PCUSA for violating the Word of God are now being persecuted over property rights. If you leave this denomination, you will forfeit rights to the property you paid for, and we will seize the property of those who disobey this mandate, so sayeth the highest officials in the denomination. It is very clear that many churches in the PCUSA are being persecuted for being faithful to the Word of God. It is also clear that many of those churches remaining in the PCUSA are being unfaithful to the Word of God. Jack Vanderbleek Elder Northeast Presbyterian Church St. Petersburg, Fla. A comment on the article 'Cardiac arrest in Heartland Presbytery' November 27, 2007 I am in agreement with what you wrote in the article titled "Cardiac arrest in Heartland's Presbytery." It seems that the uglier side of the Presbyterian Church (USA) has been revealed since the 2006 General Assembly vote. This uncovering has revealed something that is far worse than the issue of the 2006 General Assembly vote. If one has to put up a wall to keep people "in" and prevent them from the free choice of leaving, doesn't it show that was "in" is unattractive. It reminds me of the Berlin Wall. The Book of Order gives instructions for leaving the PCUSA, but when presbyteries swoop in and take over a church, it completely nullifies the process. The PCUSA is functioning like the very sick religious structure that Jesus was up against when he walked the earth. Does nothing change? The world is watching "Christians" fight over property and the world sees that the church is no different than the world, so why become part of the church? Marilyn Arledge A response regarding church membership November 27, 2007 So many pastors love to be the pastor of a larger congregation than is actually true. Our church has finally "cleaned" up the rolls to indicate an actual membership count. So, the vote of Bay Presbyterian Church may or may not be 66 2/3 percent [quourm] of the membership. Maybe churches should keep this in mind when making these decisions to vote themselves out of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Diane Shea A reply regarding seminary education November 27, 2007 "Ms. Foote wrote: 'The point of the [seminary] process is not to tell the students that they must believe A or that they can't believe B but, rather, to help the student develop a firm, reasoned basis for their faith so that he or she will be able to speak with some amount of authority when they are in a congregational setting.'" No, I wrote that the point of the process of challenging seminarians' beliefs in the first year was not to get them to be carbon copies of their professors, but to get them to think about why they believe what they believe. And I thought my seminary did a very good job of helping me to learn what beliefs are correct and what beliefs are incorrect. I did pass my Reformed Theology Ord on the first try, so I must have had some inkling about right doctrine and wrong doctrine. Rev. Westbrook: I know that Iowa is a farm state, but I had no idea that they grew enough hay to make that big a strawman. Where are these liberals that you are talking about? I'm not one, and I never met one at seminary, among the students or the professors. If they were building shrines to Darwin, Marx, Freud or Steinem, they were doing it in the privacy of their own homes and not bringing them to the classroom. The prophets we spent time studying included Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Amos. It's interesting that you take issue with my implying that you might give some primacy to the KJV, but are ready and willing to paint all liberals with a broad brush. It's pretty clear that everyone who has responded to my letters on this subject has been willing to make some fairly huge jumps to conclusions about what I believe without any evidence beyond their idea that I'm a liberal to guide them. I also wonder how you would reconcile Rev. Seng's assertion that liberals will never say what is a right belief or a wrong belief with your assertion that all liberals believe only one thing and demand that everyone toe the line of that belief. Meghan Foote Greeley, Colo. Katrina funds and 'the wolves in sheep's clothing' November 26, 2007 The recent discussion of what has happened with the Katrina funds donated to the Presbyterian Church (USA) reminded me why the session of the congregation I serve voted to send our Katrina relief money to Samaritan's Purse. And why we sent relief funds directly to First Presbyterian Church of Punta Gorda, Fla., after Hurricane Charley. And why we've chosen not to participate in all the other PCUSA special offerings where the money seems constantly to go astray to some degree to causes we could not in good Christian conscience support. My own reflection on this is that a true church or an individual believer must trust that those to whom funds are sent will use them in God-honoring ways. And trust is built on the character of those seeking it. Now, while I will admit we have a lot of characters in the PCUSA asking for our money, I personally don't trust a one of them to do anything other than make sure "all procedures were followed" as they skim money for things no orthodox, Bible-believing Christian would ever have willingly given money to support. That's the excuse given by Mary Ann Lundy for what happened with thousands of dollars she diverted to support the Re-Imagining God abomination. And while I wasn't around for it, I am sure the same could be said for the Angela Davis fiasco. And just a reminder: since we are a connectional church, it's all done in our name – yours and mine – even if we are scandalized by it. It's all cut from the same liberal, Marxist, socialist, syncrestic, pagan cloth. And none of it honors the Lord Jesus Christ. Oh, how I long for the day when God's faithful people finally rise up and say, "Enough is enough," and send the wolves in sheep's clothing packing. Rev. Bill Pawson Westminster Community Church Canton, Ohio A replay regarding First Presbyterian Church in Paola November 26, 2007 I have been following with interest the continuing saga of First Presbyterian Church in Paola, Kan., as its seeks to make its way to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. It has been treated cruelly by Heartland Presbytery. Reportedly, there is an outstanding mortgage of some $950,000 on the church property. Apparently, the funds for the payments on that mortgage must come from the tithes and offerings of the members of First Presbyterian Church in Paola. Now I have seen a report that the members intend to leave and start a new non-Presbyterian Church (USA) congregation. I assume that they would take their tithes and offerings with them. The mortgage, according to reports, is guaranteed by Heartland Presbytery. Does Heartland Presbytery intend to provide the funds to service the mortgage if the membership of the FPC Paola goes elsewhere? This sad story illustrates the importance of seeking early the protection of the civil courts when dealing with the PCUSA. The Apostle Paul said that Christians should not sue one another (I Cor. 6:1-8). However, that only applies to suits among believers. There is ever increasing evidence that the PCUSA has ceased to be a Christian denomination, so that passage of Scripture should not deter congregations from seeking the protection of the civil courts. George Hill member First Presbyterian Church EPC Baton Rouge, La. An open letter to Louden, Achtemeier, Haberer, et al. November 26, 2007 Okay, here we go. Paul Capetz, a self-described unrepentant sinner (in light of 6.106b) has called your bluff. As you will note, he, in his own words is: "... a gay man who could not in good conscience pledge a vow of celibacy. …" Now he is declaring a scruple and demanding reinstatement as a minister of Word and sacrament. He does so entirely on the strength of the PUP report. I listened carefully as self-described conservative evangelicals such as Messers Achtemeier, Louden and Haberer made their full-court press as apologists for this surrender to acculturation. In this one step, everything they denied as possible is suddenly on the table. It is time for a little transparency and perhaps some honesty. Gentlemen, was this or was this not what you anticipated? Was it or was it not, in fact, what you desired? I recall the pre-assembly workshops and whistle-stop tours you made from presbytery to presbytery to tell us that nothing had changed. Really? What do you say now? Have you been paying attention to the raft of overtures and maneuvering to circumvent the clear teachings of the Word? Or are you counting on the ignorance (either real or pretended) of the larger body of church members and frightened clergy to force syncretism onto the church? What are your positions now? Do you really believe you have served well? I am pondering a question recently posed by Bob Kopp: "Shaken and befuddled, she called … to ask how anyone couldn't affirm ordination promises made years before; and I answered, 'Some didn't understand the questions, some lied at the chancel steps, and some have changed their minds but lack integrity to demit.'" I guess my question to all of the PUP apologists remains the same: "Isn't this what you intended all along?" Rev. Jim Yearsley Tampa, Fla. Seminary education and Megan Foote November 26, 2007 Megan Foote, in her reply [Letters, November 20, 2007] to me, made the remark that she does, contrary to what she took me as saying, "believe in the Nicene Creed." Oddly enough, however, Ms. Foote goes on to defend the approach of liberal theological education with these words: "The point of the process is not to tell the students that they must believe A or that they can't believe B but, rather, to help the student develop a firm, reasoned basis for their faith so that he or she will be able to speak with some amount of authority when they are in a congregational setting." Now, this statement begs all kinds of questions. For starters, why would Megan Foote be so concerned that I know she does believe in the Nicene Creed if the point of theological education is not to tell students that they must believe A and cannot believe B? The whole notion that education is to teach us how to think but not what to think is, plain and simply, an abandonment of Christian catachesis entirely. Second, Ms. Foote wants us not to teach anything prescriptive but, instead, to "help the student develop a firm, reasoned basis for their faith so that he or she will be able to speak with some amount of authority when they are in a congregational setting." What sort of "authority" are we talking about here? Is it speaking with the authority of the Word of God or simply speaking from their authority of one who has thought about these things and come to some interesting personal conclusions? The specific case she raises, that of Carter Florence, strikes me as someone who wants to teach her students "what to think," especially when it comes to the practice of homo-erotic sex. When I go see a physician, I sure want him or her to know not only how to think medically, but what to think medically. I think we should expect no less from those to whom we hand over the "care of souls." Rev. Walter L. Taylor pastor Oak Island Presbyterian Church Oak Island, N.C. Concerns and hope November 26, 2007 I'm in my 37th year of ministry within the Presbyterian Church (USA) and feel a confidence and hope greater than I've known in 25 years. But after reading the latest issue of The Layman (which I've read for years), I'm inclined to suggest that Jesus just isn't real for us and our faith but an exercise in delusion because we can't love one another as He loves us. It seems we can only love our own kind and even that, at times, appears to be a stretch. Are we any different than the local condo association squabbling over someone's flower pots on the front walk? Some will cry out: But the issues are so important! It's more than flowerpots. Granted, but the greatest issue is love … is that not what Paul wrote to the troubled Corinthian community? A community divided by the spirit of one-upmanship? Until we can walk arm-in-arm, our witness to Christ is compromised. Cling to our confessions, stand on our version of the truth, cite passages and quote authors, but our lack of love for one another reveals the breakdown of our inner character and belies our claims of salvation. In an anxious nation, increasingly isolated and angry, our own example is anything but "salt of the earth" and "light of the world." I know the matters that divide us are serious, but I wonder if our own pride of claiming the high moral ground intensifies and distorts the reality. What will any of us say when we stand before Jesus with these terrible scars on our soul? That I believed rightly in the propositions of faith? That I picked out the gnat in the tea and swallowed a camel called pride? That I sang the name of Jesus even as I scathingly denounced sisters and brothers who also claim His precious name? If love is "the greatest of these," then we have some work ahead of us. Wasn't it our Lord who asked, "What value is there in loving those who love you?" I know that Paul and Barnabas separated, but is that not attributable to sin? In spite of Paul's brilliant faithfulness, was he not the "chief of sinners" in his own words? Well, there's not much more to be said. I guess the Lord of the Church will sort it all out, but I think those who are willing to pick up their marbles and play in someone else's backyard will find, in time, the mud there is just as muddy. The snake is never in the grass, but in our heart. With joy and hope, because Jesus remains Lord, Tom Eggebeen interim pastor Covenant Presbyterian Church Los Angeles, Calif. Everyone 'will answer to God in heaven' November 26, 2007 The poor Presbyterian Church (USA) – is all they get just poor press? Does anyone not feel sorry for all the "poor" leaders of this church? They take so much heat for doing "their " job. What is their job as prescribed by the by-laws of the church? Answer that and we can see why they get the bad press and all the heat. "They" are not doing "their" job. Each and everyone, like it or not, will answer to God in heaven. The more these "leaders" water down what God has commanded and prescribed in His Word, the more they have to answer for. Take the Bible out of the picture for a moment. Look at all of nature, plants and animals, all living things. Do any of these things have the un-natural ways to breed male to male or female to female? Not that I'm aware of. Being the evildoers we are, we have a process of sinning. Sin is not an act, we think the process through before we commit. We are tempted, we plan it, we act upon each aspect and then we commit the sin. We chose to do so. We have free will, God's plan for us. Freely accept Him or reject Him. Clyde Keene 'Scruples' do not change the constitution's requirements November 21, 2007 I would hold that Paul Captez can declare scruples to G-6.0106b from here to eternity, but it does not change the requirement of the Constitution and the Book of Order that he live in accordance with the requirements. I do not know how he plans to get around that simple fact. Frank Norment elder (inactive) Rome, Ga. 'And now, the rest of the story' November 21, 2007 While reading the article regarding Paul Capetz requesting reinstatement by the Presbytery of Twin Cities and declaring a scruple to Section "b" of our Book of Order, I was struck by the comment from the chair of the Presbytery Council, Anita M. Cummings, concerning the discernment process of the meeting: "... We will be in the strong Reformed tradition of trusting in the guidance of the Holy Spirit." As Paul Harvey says, "And now, for the rest of the story." Isn't a crucial part of our Reformed tradition missing from her statement? I thought it was: "A church reformed, always reforming, according to the Word of God and the leading of the Holy Spirit." You have to have both, it being "according to the Word of God" and "the leading of the Holy Spirit." This is where the progressives err and bring heresy to our denomination. May God continue to bless His Word and may it continue to be foremost in any discernment process that our denomination undertakes. Jennifer Kirkbride Wellsburg, W.V. A 'critical shortcoming of many [liberal] seminaries these days' November 21, 2007 Megan Foote's letter to the editor [Letters, November 20, 2007] impels me to point out one critical shortcoming of many [liberal] seminaries these days. The consequences of said shortcoming are enormous. Ms. Foote wrote: "The point of the [seminary] process is not to tell the students that they must believe A or that they can't believe B but, rather, to help the student develop a firm, reasoned basis for their faith so that he or she will be able to speak with some amount of authority when they are in a congregational setting." It is entirely incorrect to suggest that a seminary is not to teach what is and is not correct belief. While it is true that the development of one's faith foundation is important and vital, it is precisely through a blend of listening to other views and the teaching of what is correct and apostate doctrine that will properly prepare students and candidates for ministry. There are a number of things that students must be told they must believe. Ms. Foote points to the reality of what's coming out of more than a few Presbyterian Church (USA) seminaries. An example close to me will illustrate the aforementioned reality and one of the [many] implications involved. A good friend of mine attended for a time Louisville Seminary. Ms. Foote's letter makes the statement: "When Dr. Carter Florence spoke of taking away students' Jesus and Bible, she was speaking of the way that seminaries challenge student's beliefs in order to help them to build a firmer foundation for those beliefs." Commensurate with this statement, my friend told me she and the other students were explicitly told that the seminary intended to break and tear down their faith to the foundation and build it up. This occurred through a disparaging or rejection of many of the historical claims and doctrines of the church, a debunking of the miracles, the "historicity" of our Scriptures, its veracity, the nature of the inspiration involved, etc. In short, virtually everything was suddenly up for grabs and one's own discernment. Perhaps someone at the seminary might want or need to qualify this, but this is first-hand testimony from a former student. In any event, my friend's experience was that they tore down the walls of her faith so drastically, dramatically, and left it so wide open so as to leave her not simply aghast, but devastated. The kicker is that they then failed to give anything back with which to rebuild. That is the destructive power of not teaching truth or correct doctrine, but leaving it up for us to discern. hat is why Rev. Russ Westbrook's letter [Letters, November 20, 2007] is such a powerful and timely antidote to such theological nonsense. I entirely agree that Machen's Christianity and Liberalism ought to be a required seminary read – and, perhaps, a yearly read for all pastors. But, fortunately, we don't have to go outside the PCUSA to find orthodoxy. There are plenty of instances within us. We just have to keep at it and remain vigilant about refuting the heresies and errors which abound. Rev. Steven L. Seng First Presbyterian Church Wellsburg, W.V. Can Purves explain the decline in the PCUSA? November 20, 2007 Dr. Gamble appropriately sets the record straight why Calvin and the Reformers saw the Roman Catholic Church as evil and corrupt. Calvin and the Reformers did not leave the Roman Catholic Church, but the RCC left the Reformers and Calvin by not repenting of their sin and wickedness. For Purvis to say leaving the Presbyterian Church (USA) is tantamount to sin is in need of therapy, and why are so many leaving the PCUSA? Could the seminary professor reasonably answer why there is such a decline in the PCUSA? Louis Stephen Nowasielski Wilmington, Del. A reply to the letter by Megan Foote November 20, 2007 I congratulate you [Letters, November 16, 2007] on making me laugh this morning. Of all the things liberals have accused me of, "sitting in the corner and pouting" has never been one of them. You truly do have your self-claimed gift of the absurd, and I thank you. As to the main body of your letter: It strikes me that you seem to have liberalism confused with the discipline of open inquiry. The two do not even begin to share a sliver of common ground. Liberalism is a dogmatically creedal faith; far more dogmatic than Reformed theology has ever been. It is a systematic pattern of naturalistic doctrine built upon its own prophets – Darwin, Marx, Freud, Steinem, et. al. – and its proponents have never had any room in their house for free thought regarding Christology or anything else. Having studied at far more and varied seminaries and theological schools than a sane man ought to, I can assure you from experience that if a learner wants his mind sharpened, he should attend an orthodox Christian institution rather than a liberal one. The seminal work by John Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, really should be required reading for anyone who wants to understand the nature of liberalism. Written 80 years ago, it never has been answered by liberals with anything other than hatred, and it definitively shows that liberalism is a completely other "faith" than Christianity. I have no problem with seminaries teaching men to think; I have grave difficulties with seminaries taking our best and brightest and inducting them into a non-Christian religion. BTW; just for the record: I have never made the KJV my text for preaching. I do make the NKJV my primary text however, supplemented at times with the ESV, NASB and NIV, as well as a few others now and then. And I think the good folk of Riverside PCA would at least smirk if you came here and told them the Bible classes I teach and the sermons I give are "easy" messages that fail to stimulate them to the life of the mind. I may just have to distribute your work of absurdity this Sabbath so as to generate a few yuks during fellowship time. Rev. Russ Westbrook teaching elder Riverside Presbyterian Church, PCA A reply to the letter by Walter Taylor November 20, 2007 That [Letters, November 16, 2007] is truly an amazing reading of my letter [Letters, November 14, 2007]. I wonder if you have any more insights into my life because I, for one, was totally unaware that I did not believe in the Nicene Creed. When Dr. Carter Florence spoke of taking away students' Jesus and Bible, she was speaking of the way that seminaries challenge student's beliefs in order to help them to build a firmer foundation for those beliefs. For many students, that process does indeed feel like the seminary is taking away their Jesus. One classmate spoke of how the first year of seminary made her feel (metaphorically) like a frog in a biology class, cut open and having all her of her parts pulled out and examined. The point of the process is not to tell the students that they must believe A or that they can't believe B but, rather, to help the student develop a firm, reasoned basis for their faith so that he or she will be able to speak with some amount of authority when they are in a congregational setting. That way, when a member of the congregation asks them a difficult question about the Christian faith, it won't be the first time it has ever happened. When a seminary professor says something that differs in some way with the faith that you brought with you to seminary, they do not expect you to just sit there dumbly and accept it without question. They want you to question what they said, they want you to think, to learn and to grow. An unquestioned faith never grows, never fully blooms. A faith so brittle that it shatters the instant it is exposed to a new idea is not something to rejoice in; a faith that has been tested and tempered is. Meghan Foote Greeley, Colo. A reply regarding Katrina relief funds November 20, 2007 It was my understanding that funds raised for Katrina relief would be immediately used for that purpose. Also, 100 cents on the dollar would be used without overhead. Apparently, this was not the case. Ben Vernon Paola case a 'prime example of heavy-handed attitude the PCUSA has taken' November 19, 2007 What happened here is a prime example of the heavy-handed attitude the Presbyterian Church (USA) has taken. It is not a Christian attitude, and it also reeks with similarity to the persecution of Protestants in Europe by the Roman Catholic Church during the Protestant Reformation (my history dates are a little blurry). The PCUSA is making no friends with this attitude of theirs. I think it is time for all churches that wish to leave the PCUSA to do, as Paul did later in his life when he "appealed to Caesar," pre-emptively file a lawsuit for property and to stop the presbyteries from taking actions to prevent a church from seeking to discern God's will for their church. It is the only way a church will be allowed to seek God's will. The PCUSA has sought to place the world over God and is trying to force churches to submit to this ideal. Maybe it's time for an EPC church plant in Paola, Kan.? Joseph L. McCay What are all those boxes? November 19, 2007 Heartland Presbytery's lawyer passed on a question he got from his client: "Gee, what are all those boxes doing at the church?" Members of the so-called "true church" designated by Heartland apparently were afraid that the minister the presbytery is throwing out might be sneaking things away from the church. Think about it. The "true church" members did not even know that their church was part of Operation Christmas Child. They didn't even know what outreach efforts were going on. Forrest Norman Hudson, Ohio A question on an article November 19, 2007 H. Richard Niebuhr described the liberal message of the social gospel era as: "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministration of a Christ without a cross." Thus, someone seems to be confused in your "Jerry Andrews offers ..." article (B4, October/November 2007). A part of the description is referred to and then attributed to Richard's brother, Reinhold Niebuhr. Both theologians criticized the liberal theology of their day; so the sentiment could be attributed to either. But the quote is so famous, I believe that H. Richard Niebuhr is the author being thought of. Will Eisenhower How can a church live? November 19, 2007 I can see no way that the Presbyterian Church (USA) can live when they will not obey the Word of God. Do they just tear out the pages of Scripture that they do not like? Lloyd Myers A reply regarding the letter by Art Sandalow November 19, 2007 My response may have appeared to Mr. Sandalow [Letters, Nov. 15, 2007] as "nasty." It was intended to be direct with a minimum of ambiguity. I am not aware that I know Mr. Sandalow, nor that he is among my friends who know me as Jim. My name is James. I don't know Fair Oaks Presbyterian, but in my more than seven decades, I have witnessed many polls and have worked with pollsters. What my letter was addressing is the implication that The Layman Online story took numbers out of context. I have seen Rev. Williamson attacked many times over the years by people who object to his message, so they attack him. I know Parker to be factual, diligent and deliberate. Through all this, Parker remains personally humble and loving; even those who spitefully use him know this and personally trust him. He has been too humble to use the press that was under his control to defend himself. So, I object to the barb thrown at him – "It is easy to throw out numbers without their context." Parker did note the membership of that congregation as well as the number who voted. Thousands access the PLC's Web site; so it must not be allowed that an attack on a PLC trusted servant would go unchallenged. As for me getting nasty fast, I tried to keep to the facts and gave leave for the statistical comment to be made by one not skilled in statistics. I am also aware of the tactics used by Louisville's henchmen. A few years ago, commissioner Metherell used the PCUSA constitution to call the General Assembly back into session. After apparent arm twisting, one commissioner relented and the attempt failed. I am also aware of how the same process is used to solicit innocent comments from congregational members, comments which were then used to dismiss the Bible-believing, Bible-preaching pastor and dissolve the congregation. So, the efforts of contemporary COMs are suspect at best and contemptible at least. James Logan Sr. Rock Hill, S.C. Continuing dialogue is appreciated November 19, 2007 I appreciate Larry Brown's [Letters, November 14, 2007] continuing dialogue with me regarding the Bible and God and the question of infallibility. Mr. Brown makes an interesting statement regarding my remarks: "He also seems to be implying is that the message God sends is infallible, but we, the humans who receive it, receive it fallibly. It's like the telephone receiver that has so much static on the line that what the receiving party hears is garbled. In a case like that, the message being sent becomes irrelevant." I appreciate the telephone scenario since I worked for AT&T for 26 years. Yes, the AT&T network, though among the best, was also fallible at times and there could be static. But I don't think God uses AT&T, or at least I don't recall God's name showing up as a customer. Rather, God uses the heavenly network that is eternal and never fails nor has static. The problem is the human on the other end of the line who doesn't always listen. That again goes back to my original question. Does it really make sense to claim that humans at one point in time were not fallible when recording our Scriptures? In fact, conservatives and evangelicals don't even practice this in reality, even though they make such statements. Just go into a bookstore. There is a large section on Christianity, let alone other religions. Numerous authors of the conservative and evangelical persuasions have written books and made a lot of money off that explaining what the Bible does and doesn't mean. If the Bible is infallible and comes directly from God, why do we need all this explanation? We don't if it is infallible. The fact is that these conservatives and evangelicals make a point to explain the historic and cultural context relating to the writings, since taking the words on face value might not always make sense or even conflict with other words in the Bible. If the Bible is truly infallible and quite literally the Word of God dictated and humans just simply wrote it down, it seems to me many people are wasting a lot of money on reading books written by fallible humans explaining what the infallible Bible means. In fact, our preachers and churches are irrelevant if one wants to truly believe the Bible is all there is. We could certainly save a lot of money by just staying home and reading the infallible Word of God rather than hearing what sinners have to say about it. That might be a good idea in these times of rising gasoline prices. But the truth is no one does that and that is the great contradiction. The reality is that our faith is more than the Bible. It involves the living God who we experience personally, as well as other followers in the faith. Another writer in your forum, Loren Golden, asked a good question related to this: "First, in response to Mr. Apel, by what authority do you say that God communicates infallibly through our hearts and souls? Did God communicate that directly to your soul? Or did He speak to you through the medium of the Bible?" Well, actually God first spoke to me through a woman, my mother. My first recollection about God is my mother telling me about God. Then, I learned more about God at church and in reading the Bible. Then, what really counted in the end was my personal decision to say yes, I do know God as reality and accept God's love through Jesus Christ. I guess, to answer the question, God spoke to me through people, personally in prayer, mediation, and revelation, and through the Bible. The last I checked, most everyone who is Christian, if not all, have this combination that is essential to having any kind of faith. I have not met a Christian yet who has claimed faith just through the so-called infallible Bible. Mr. Golden also asks: "Second, if you believe that God speaks infallibly through our hearts and souls, then by what authority do you say that He did not speak infallibly through the hearts, souls, lips and pens of Moses and Paul? Is the authority of God speaking infallibly through your heart and soul inherently greater than the authority of God speaking infallibly through the hearts and souls of the human authors of Scripture?" Well, I don't have the authority to say God didn't speak infallibly through Moses and Paul. But then I have to ask by what authority does Mr. Golden have that the pens that wrote the words attributed to Moses and Paul resulted in the infallible Word of God? Was he there as a witness as the words were written down? Mr. Golden asks: "Third, if you believe that God speaks infallibly through our hearts and souls, how do you then reconcile that belief with the fact that members of the institutional church are at odds over the infallibility of Scripture? Has God infallibly told some believers that the Scripture is not infallible and has told other believers that the Scripture is infallible? What, then, does this belief suggest about God? Does it not suggest, in contradiction to I Corinthians 14:33, that God is a God of confusion and not of peace?" This answer is easy. Those in the institutional church have been at odds for centuries in how Scripture is interpreted. That is why we had the Reformation and countless denominations afterwards. If Scripture is infallible and so clear cut, then this argument would not even be taking place. Get real. Honestly, do you really believe it is a case of people just deciding to make trouble for the heck of it? Martin Luther wasn't doing that, nor has may others that followed. It is serious business in making sure the Bible is interpreted rightly as part of a living faith through Christ Jesus. Mr. Golden states: "I agree that we must invest time with God and develop a personal relationship with Him. However, we must also understand that He has given us the Bible as His holy, inerrant Word, which is His written self-revelation. He expects us to spend time with Him in it. If we add to what He has said in it or if we take away from what He has said in it, we then build an idol in our own image after our likeness, and in the end we no more have a relationship with God than a man dating a mannequin has a relationship with a real woman." OK, this goes back to a point of mine. If the Bible is all there is and the only way to be in relationship with God, then we need to discard churches, preachers and anything else that is of the world, for those are idols in our own images and likenesses (or like dating mannequins). Why should we have anything to do with people or anything else worldly and fallible when we have the infallible Bible by our bedside? I do have to admit I like books. So, I guess I and others might as well forsake any other relationships and just keep books by our bedside including the one that is infallible. Earl C. Apel member Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church Cincinnati, Ohio 'I do not wholly agree' with Purves' position on Calvin November 16, 2007 I would like to put a word in on the exchange between Dr. Purvis and Dr. Gamble and some of the recent letters that have discussed this and other issues. Just to put my cards on the table: Dr. Purvis is a friend of mine and I admire his scholarship. I have heard Andrew speak many times at Montreat and he has visited our church during renewal weekends. I also happen to agree that Dr. Gamble's take on Calvin is reasonably accurate and, some time ago, I let Andrew know that I did not wholly agree with the public reports of his position. (It being a fact that the press does not always fully and accurately report complex issues.) I did so privately because I did not want to be seen as attacking a fellow evangelical and a fellow worker for renewal in the Presbyterian Church (USA). Whatever else Andrew Purvis may be, he is a wonderful Christian and a powerful agent of good things in the PCUSA. As an adult-long evangelical Protestant, I am, of course, disturbed by the course of our denomination and by the lack of faithfulness to the Biblical witness for Christ and the Great Tradition often demonstrated within the PCUSA. Yet, it is at least as discouraging when brothers and sisters in the evangelical movement degenerate into meanness. It might be remembered that Dr. Gamble and Dr. Purvis are both fine Christians, both respected scholars, and both sincerely seeking God's will in a complex and perhaps even impossible situation. One of the most discouraging things about the past several years in the PCUSA is the way in which the renewal wing of the church has become fragmented in its witness, and therefore largely ineffective in overcoming some of the problems we face as a denomination. Those of us who are working for renewal, and those who have left and are leaving, have a good bit more in common than we have differences. Our common commitment to Christ and common faith in the Gospel should be reflected in the way we conduct our internal disagreements. Thanks to all those within and without the Presbyterian Lay Committee who are seeking to address the problems of our denomination. Chris Scruggs Cordova, Tenn. A response to the letter by Megan Foote November 16, 2007 Ms. Foote of Greeley, Colo., [Letters, November 14, 2007] says, sarcastically, "No one should ever be asked to develop a Christology beyond 'my mommy told me so' and certainly no one should ever be asked to do evil things like textual criticism or exegesis." It seems to me that the real issue at hand is whether we are free to develop a Christology beyond "the Bible tells me so." The struggle we are facing today, Ms. Foote, is not whether we should ever think critically. However, we do need to consider on what ground or basis we think critically. Many of us have studied all manner of higher criticism. But again, are we not free to be critical of the basis of such criticism? The fact is that much textual criticism is based on an entirely naturalistic reading of the text, one that discounts anything that cannot fit into the Enlightenment skepticism that underlies much (though not necessarily all) of text criticism. Quite honestly, I have heard all sorts of dogmatic assertions made, on the basis of "textual criticism," that are at least as subjective (and I would say far more subjective) than those of us who actually seek to bring together text and creed. One divinity school professor at the university I attended asserted that the Gospel of Mark was written as a polemic against the Jerusalem church and, thus, this is why the apostles appear so "stupid" in the text. Another assertion, even more common, that I often ran across was that it is "clear" that the Great Commission in the Gospel of Matthew was later "redaction" added to the original text, as Jesus would not have said something like "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" or been concerned with something so ecclesiastical as baptism. This assertion was commonly made despite that fact that there is not a single shred of manuscript evidence to support the assertion that the oldest form of Matthew does not have this passage at the end. So, Ms. Foote, before you paint anyone who actually confesses that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human, homoousios with the Father, I would urge you also to look at your own assumptions, and those of your teachers, with a certain critical eye. And, in the end, I would urge you to ask yourself who or what has to tell you something in order for you to believe it is true. Rev. Walter L. Taylor pastor Oak Island Presbyterian Church Oak Island, N.C. A reply to the letter by Rev Westbrook November 16, 2007 I was not spewing vitriol, or attacking you ad hominem, unless you believe that disagreeing with you is attacking you by definition. I was employing a classical form of argument known as "reductio ad absurdum" (see Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes for a classical, formal example of this type of argument). In that form of argument, one assumes that the given thesis is true, then one shows that it leads to absurdity. In this particular case, I took what I understood to be your thesis, "it is a bad thing that seminaries challenge people's faith," and by assuming it to be true, showed why I felt it was absurd. If that was not your thesis, please explain to me what your thesis is. If it was your thesis, please explain to me why I am wrong about its consequences. But, please, don't sit in the corner and pout about how mean I'm being to you. Meghan Foote Greeley, Colo.

November 2007 letters, page 2 Home · News · PLC Publications · The Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links