 |
|
| February
2008 letters Archives of letters to the editor  |
|
| Achtemeier
denies 'a basic reality of our Presbyterian past' February 29, 2008 In his rationale for his overture, Dr. Mark Achtemeier writes that, "The Presbyterian Church has always resisted efforts to define 'essentials' in the abstract." This is simply not true. Achtemeier makes no mention of the General Assembly's 1892 "Portland Deliverance," which made a high view of Scripture – inerrancy – binding on all Presbyterian ministers. The "Portland Deliverance" was affirmed by the 1899 General Assembly, and the 1910 General Assembly declared five doctrines to be "essential and necessary." Those doctrines included inerrancy, the virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily Resurrection, and the miracle working power of Christ. These five points of doctrine were reaffirmed by the general assemblies of 1916 and 1923. It was not until the late 1920s that these five doctrines were made non-binding on pastors. Yet, it must be said that, from 1892 to 1927, the Presbyterian Church (USA) did define essentials tenets of the faith. For Achtemeier to argue otherwise is to deny a basic reality of our Presbyterian past. Rev. Jeff McDonald pastor Murray Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) Murray, Neb. Comments are 'unfortunately ugly' February 29, 2008 Carol Joan Schaef's comments [Letters, February 28, 2008] about the Evangelical Presbyterian Church and women are as ugly and ill-informed as they are illogical. Her pathetic assertion that "an abusive man could purposefully seek out EPC churches to further abusive situations against women" is as mean-spirited as it is ridiculous. But then Carol goes on to suggest that "we should all think about this the next time we read about a husband killing a wife," equating the EPC with murderers. I pray that Carol's thought process is not really captive to such a gross and tortured mis-perception of reality. It's just plain ugly, and has no place in public discourse. Forrest Norman Hudson, Ohio A response to the letter by Chris Joiner February 29, 2008 Chris Joiner has written a comment [Letters, February 27, 2008] about recent exchanges between members of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Church in America:
Secondly, I personally am in favor of allowing women to be whatever they feel called by God to be. As a career missionary who teaches church history, I am aware of all the intrepid women who braved danger and hardship to bring the Gospel to remote areas while Scripturally qualified males stayed home and ministered in churches with air conditioning and thick carpeting. And it is in those areas where single women missionaries went that that the Church is posting the most dramatic growth. Thirdly, it is true that the EPC, unlike the Presbyterian Church (USA), has no quota system. It doesn't do affirmative action. It doesn't drag women kicking and screaming into the session room. This means that when a woman in the EPC attains leadership status, she had something else going for her besides being female. Fourthly, I suspect that many women who reject the EPC because of a lack of preponderance of female leadership will find other reasons to do so, such as a high view of Scripture, a consistent refusal to be politically correct, and a tendency to be on the right side of the fence in other areas as well. In short, we are unapologetically, irretrievably conservative. Finally, how does Mr. Joiner know "at best they keep them at arms length?" I have been a member of the PCUS, the PCUSA and now the EPC. How much time has Mr. Joiner spent in an EPC church? And then he mentioned something about "Love for the brethren." Okay, let's talk about that. Out of love for the brethren, the PCUSA deposes pastors. Out of love for the brethren, the PCUSA dissolves sessions. Out of love for the brethren, the PCUSA changes locks on doors. Out of love for the brethren, the PCUSA takes congregations to court. Truly, the love of the PCUSA is a wondrous thing. Larry Brown African Bible College Lilongwe, Malawi A response to the letter by Toby Brown February 29, 2008 Maybe I should clarify my position. I don't think the Presbyterian Church (USA) represents Presbyterianism. I don't think they are Presbyterian or Reformed. They have departed from the historic Reformed faith and have descended into something I call "Presbyterianite." What's funny about this new belief that comes from liberal presbyteries like Chicago and others is that they really don't know what they believe, but they know they don't believe in classic Christianity. They throw the term "Reformed" around like they are the authorities but, in reality, they have no clue. So, I agree with you, Louisville thinks it has the corner on the "Reformed" and "Presbyterian" labels. They don't realize that they have departed so much from the Reformed faith as to not even know it. There are times when they don't even seem to know the Christian faith, much less the Reformed formulation. The "Presbyterianites" really have nothing to stand on. They all seem to say we should be Presbyterian Church (USA), but they can't answer the all important question of "Why?" I am well aware of P&R Publishing, as well as others. A little bit of background on me: I went to Westminster Seminary in Philly because I wanted to learn about the Bible and Reformed faith, not liberal politics like they teach at McCormick Theological Seminary. I am currently a student at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis (the PCA seminary). I respect Mr. Brown's position, and I hope I've clarified mine a bit. Bob Price associate pastor First Presbyterian Church Downers Grove, Ill. Rejoicing over GAPJC ruling may be short-lived February 28, 2008 While we rejoice at this period of peace in the aftermath of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission rulings, it may be short-lived. The Achtemeier overture will, most likely, be passed by the General Assembly, based on the last 15 years of experience. Based upon the votes on Overture B (1996), Overture A (1997), Overture O (2001) and the list of constitutional presbyteries, 86 presbyteries (49%) will probably approve the overture as follows:
It is a terrible thing that we have not attempted to move evangelical congregations from progressive presbyteries. What would Henrietta Mears think of what happened to the great evangelical beacon of Los Angeles, First Hollywood Presbyterian? We need a delegate to present the two-synod structure overture and we need a delegate to present the Beaver-Butler overture. John Almquist Women and the EPC, PCA February 28, 2008 I'd like to thank Chris Joiner for his post [Letters, February 27, 2008], which included a discussion on the ordination of women. Those in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church/Presbyterian Church in America and other denominations who are against the ordination of women may be micro-focusing on a few lines of Scripture without looking at the entire issue. I believe that the issue of women participating in the church is multifaceted. Ordination is the issue that gets most attention, but there are many other levels in churches in which this issue is present. Many divorced women are seen as having failed to serve a man and single women are seen as lacking the support of a man. Men in both these categories are viewed very differently. Churches abound with leadership classes tailored for men, before-work support groups that are male-only, and how to evangelize in the workplace tailored for men only. Organizations for women mainly circle around the needs of children, domestic issues, knitting and quilting and other items typically associated with women. While these groups are needed and benefit many, women who are professionals are seldom, if ever, considered in many churches. In this way, any woman who is not a stay-at-home-mom may have very little role or support system in churches. Conservative churches are sometimes known for this type of stereotyping. In this way, I would like to expand upon Chris' comments – women's ordination is a visible topic, but the root cause goes very deep into our culture and society. Many men are uncomfortable with women in leadership. However, many women are equally uncomfortable with some men in leadership, but are accepting of this with God's grace. The experience of uniting in Christ with those with whom your initial impression was a stereotypical one can be enriching and empowering. The Presbyterian Outlook recently had an article titled "Interfaith domestic violence coalition plans Capitol Hill briefing Feb. 13 on 2009 agenda." The Presbyterian Church (USA) has been involved in women's issues, has domestic violence programs, while the EPC has very little or none. While the EPC has a position paper on domestic violence, it is likely that not much from it will be implemented as it would impact men. In the EPC, an abusive man could purposefully seek out EPC churches to further abusive situations against women. Women have very little voice in the EPC and divorce is only permitted in the case of desertion, according to their position paper. We should all think and pray about this the next time a story is in the news about a husband killing a wife, which unfortunately repeats itself many times a day. Any woman who is in a church that is trying to leave the PCUSA should think carefully about the treatment of women in the EPC before going on this path. While failure to ordain women is a tragic issue in the EPC, the issue of ordaining male abusers of women continues with very little press or discussion in the EPC. God has called many groups of people into service including women. Denominations that truly want to reach people and bring them into God's care will not create many levels of barriers including gender. Carol Joan Schaef Both Deneberg and the PCUSA miss the boat entirely February 28, 2008 Mr. Denenberg is more than correct in his assessments regarding the media's tendency to "sanitize." Euphemistic language has proven anathema not only to classical Protestant apologetics, but a barrier to progress and understanding. Having said that, I would submit to Mr.Denenberg that the very appraisals he chides are quite likely no more rooted in misnomer than his own. In light of crypto-Guevarist media bias, there is rarely such a thing as policies or moratoriums whose mechanisms and motifs aren't a tad maladroit. Hence, the very notion that we in this quarter of the Earth are sufficiently advised in all the underlying factors to make a thoroughly intelligent analysis across the board is reflective of the very naivety upon which any ethically-dismissive tendency in government would come to depend. In light of the penchant our central government has to keep its own citizens in the dark about many matters here at home, is anyone of us grounded enough in the facts of discord in the Middle East to be assured no facets of American bureaucracy caused or exacerbated any of its tensions? Are we conceited enough or, for that matter, doltish enough to behave as if under the notion we've been told everything? Such posturing is tantamount, in my view, to hypocrisy and selective enforcement stratagems that are base abridgments to the eternal vigilance that is the core requisite of freedom. My distant cousin, President Benjamin Harrison, attended the first Pan-American Conference in 1889 and championed discourse and commerce among the nations, while maintaining a 48 percent tariff on imported goods with the supervening intent to protect the American worker. He allocated funds accrued from the tariff to revitalize the infrastructure the United States. But in the matter of struggles among the nations, he said, " We Americans have no commission from God to police the world." Wise words from a long-dead Presbyterian elder, as he obviously had sense enough to know that charity begins at home. The Presbyterian Church (USA) reflects the government in the sense that it is inundated by self-serving, irreverent contingents to the point it has lost sight of this age-old adage regarding charity. Those at the helm of our denomination's centralized bureaucracy are therefore in no moral position to indict, accuse or anything else due to their egregious Biblical and confessional declension. The internal threat they pose to Christendom is, in the spiritual vein, no less deleterious than any militaristic contrivance employed on cue from Osama Bin Laden. If Mr. Denenberg is as passionate about the Middle East as his rather vitriolic finger-pointing would imply, he would be well advised to seek the counsel of the Book of Genesis for the real root cause. Look up a lady named Hagar and her son Ishmael. Eric Wells Boardman, Ohio 'I have a right to expect much more from the PCUSA in showing leadership' February 27, 2008 A few years ago, I returned to the church after an absence of many years. During my early years, I was raised a Lutheran and later attended a Presbyterian college. In those formative years, I found the church a stiff and unwelcoming place which did not always have the welcome mat our for unbelievers. When I returned to my current Presbyterian church, I found a very welcoming environment and a truly exceptional church leadership. I found strong value systems and a leadership which did not command respect, but which had respect because of deep-seated Christian principles and values (my kind of people). I did not expect to see a church General Assembly engaged in intramural warfare over very basic Biblical principles. The battle raging about gays and lesbians makes absolutely no sense. Too many people have walked away from the roots of our nation and the Christian religion in the name of multiculturalism and some of the other current trivia. Some denominations have buckled to the whim of the current culture and have abandoned their roots. Look to the Anglican church as a prime example of what I call the "Church of the What's Happening Now." Ordaining gays, and accepting whatever current culture imposes is not exhibiting leadership. I recently read that one English cleric suggested we should allow Muslims to have their own religious courts, sharia law and processes. So much for the rule of law in England. Understand that some of the people leading this charge to the left are the very leadership of the Anglican church (if such can be called leadership). I have a right to expect much more from the Presbyterian Church (USA) in showing leadership, and would hope that they take a strong stand on moral values and on the issues of gays in the church. I do not want to see the PCUSA become irrelevant and succumb to the current-in-vogue push for multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is synonymous with the "if it feels good, do it" philosophy. When we abandon our values, what do we have left? Jay Dull A reply regarding the letter, 'Are we even 'Presbyterian?' February 27, 2008 It is interesting to me that in Bob Price's recent letter [Letters, February 26, 2008] he assumes that being Presbyterian means being tied to what is going on in the Presbyterian Church (USA) denomination. How interesting that even evangelicals within our organization still make the assumption that being Presbyterian means being PCUSA! I bet Louisville is cheering this line of thinking. If Rev. Price wants to be Presbyterian and he has a problem with the theological ooze that comes from Louisville, then may I suggest that he look to the other fine Presbyterian publishers that are at work brining Gospel-oriented and Reformed thinking resources to Christians today? Whether one looks to the Layman's publishing house or Great Commission Publications or P&R, there are many, many examples of Presbyterian resources that are available to those who honor the Reformation - even within the PCUSA! All you have to do is look. Toby L. Brown pastor First Presbyterian Church Cuero, Texas A reply regarding the PCA and EPC February 27, 2008 I have read with some interest the exchange between the representatives of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Church in America in this forum. It should be instructive to any Presbyterian Church (USA) member who is thinking about leaving this denomination for either of those denominations. The fact that these two Reformed bodies are arguing over women's ordination, with each apparently trying to establish their Reformed bona fides by distancing themselves from this question and linking it to naturalism, should be a huge wake-up call to any PCUSA woman who thinks for a moment that she will be recognized as a leader in these denominations. The EPC may ordain women in a very few cases (I've yet to see statistics on this), but at best they keep them at arms length. "Love for the brethren" indeed. The EPC and the PCA certainly have the right to hold to any theological position they want, no matter how anachronistic. But my prayer is that those who are thinking about leaving the PCUSA will not be sold a bill of goods. Remember, it was one of the leaders of the New Wineskins (who is now EPC, I think) who said they would only go with the EPC if we "can bring our women with us." I've yet to hear a more condescending comment directed at ordained women, but it was very revealing. This little exchange in The Layman Online (which seems to have become a house organ of the EPC and PCA), for those who have ears to hear, should give us all some pause. Chris Joiner Fussing and fighting February 27, 2008 I get so sad when I see all the time, energy and money expended in meetings, suing and counter-suing in the name of religion. For some time, I have followed the "Back to Jerusalem" movement which has grown out of the house church movement in China. I checked their web site recently and printed a Q & A sheet. These are a couple of quotes: "In March 2000, the first group of 36 Back to Jerusalem missionaries left China. These were all men and women who had been in full time ministry for the Lord for many years, with much fruit. These were not new believers, or young people looking for something to do. No, these were all battle-hardened warriors of the Gospel who have proven God faithful and experienced much hardship. Almost all of them had been arrested for the Gospel, imprisoned, beaten, slandered and tortured. …" "We have several key principles that we believe God has taught us and which we plan to take into the mission field. For example, we refuse to be drawn into the spirit of denominationalism in any way. We are going to preach the Gospel and see sinners come to the feet of Jesus and experience a new life that He won for them on the Cross. We don't want any part of promoting any denomination. We only want to promote Jesus and ask the Holy Spirit to confirm whether Jesus is alive or not in the hearts of people everywhere. Nowhere in God's Word does it say that if we lift up our church or methods or doctrine will the Holy Spirit bless us and bring revival. But Jesus clearly told us who we should lift up: 'But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself'" (John 12:32). I think these words should speak to all of us. Pete Simpson Bloomington, Minn. The arrogance of the PCUSA February 27, 2008 Larry Brown's quote [Letters, February 25, 2008]: "The PCUSA has lost 31 percent of its members since the amalgamation of 1983. I wonder if the hierarchs of the PCUSA ever ask themselves, "Gee, are we doing something wrong?" Another episode in the drama, "As the PCUSA Turns." The hierarchs of the Presbyterian Church (USA) in their divine right would never admit doing anything wrong. The same hierarchs would never admit wrongness even if our Lord Jesus Christ proved the same to the hierarchs of the PCUSA. The hierarchs of the PCUSA would say, "Now Lord, you just do not understand because this is a different day and age not like it was in your day, Lord, with all do respect." The hierarchs would fall over themselves as if they were drunk with alcohol explaining away their sin and wickedness to the point that it might be the fault of our Lord Jesus Christ asking such a stupid question. The question being, "Is the PCUSA doing something wrong?" The hierarchs of the PCUSA are never wrong in their infinite wisdom – just side-tracked, they might admit. The hierarchs think they are infinite, but really the hierarchs are legends of their own minds. Louis Stephen Nowasielski Wilmington, Del. A reply to the letter by Bill Little February 27, 2008 I am writing this letter in response to the letter [Letters, February 13, 2008] by the Rev. Bill Little of Mt. Vernon Community Presbyterian Church in McKeesport, Pa. Just a little background might be helpful: Many years ago, I was an elder in a congregation that voted on leaving the Presbyterian Church (USA). Because I did not think it right for me to split a local congregation, my wife and I stayed in the PCUSA, and eventually I became a minister of the Word and sacrament. I am always loath to say where there is a "line in the sand." God calls people to serve where He wills them to serve, some in healthy growing congregations, others in slowly dying ones. Naturally, it is more fun to serve in the first category. Throughout history, God has placed some Christians in service to wise leaders and others in service to fools. The question is not, therefore, "Have we reached a line in the sand?" but "Where is God calling me to serve?" Our family stayed in the PCUSA to be a part of its renewal. Now, as of today, I can't say that we've been very successful. I do hope we've been faithful. What will it take for the PCUSA to return to health and avoid collapse? I have a few ideas: 1. The Holy Spirit must work in the hearts and minds of all of us. There is no renewal without God's direct intervention by the Spirit of Christ. 2. Our members, elders, pastors and others must make a commitment to live out the Christian life in ways that show the difference Christian faith makes. The world cares little or nothing for our battles. They would like to see the love of Christ lived out in our individual lives and congregations. This does not mean at all that we abandon historic Christian faith and morals. Rather, it means we intentionally live them out in our day and in our time, in families, in neighborhoods, in businesses, in neighborhoods and in government. 3. We need to return to the deep roots of the apostolic faith and our Reformed tradition. So often we focus on avant garde theologies and esoteric theological difficulties, forgetting to emphasize the great apostolic, catholic tradition of which we are a part. 4. We must rethink our polity. Instead of thinking in terms of maintaining a "top-down" bureaucracy, we need to be congregationally-focused. Rather than speaking of presbyteries as "governing bodies," we need to think of them as "servant bodies." The Form of Government report was well-intentioned, but it failed to adequately confront our need for a new form of connectionalism that addresses the needs of our post-industrial and post-modern culture. This is not the place for me to state my concerns about the recent decisions of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission and Advisory Opinion No. 21. I shall just hint that the good news that the GAPJC sees that mandatory requirements are mandatory should not blind us to hidden dangers in other parts of the opinions. I, for one, think that sessions and presbyteries are free to state and/or restate what they believe about the Constitution at any time, and attempts to silence them by judicial fiat are dangerous. Were it not for those presbyteries, such as ours, that had the courage to state their disagreement with the PUP report, I doubt that we would be in the happy position we are in on this day. The opinions also err when they purport to prevent presbyteries from attempting to state what they believe are essentials. Although I myself am skeptical about such attempts, it is impossible to examine candidates unless one has some idea of what it is important to examine candidates on and what a correct answer might be to those questions. Presbytery approved standards are one way of addressing this problem. If a presbytery adopts a faulty or overly-restrictive set of standards, the GAPJC could then hear any objections to a particular standard or application of standards. This is, in fact, the way it was when Westminster standards were the norm. This aspect of the GAPJC decision and of Advisory Opinion No. 21 is most troubling and will not help in the process of renewing the PCUSA. I am tempted to point out that the opinions are also another example of a "top-down" attempt to prevent dissent. Finally, I am sorry that there continues to be a misapprehension among those who supported the PUP report about the utility of authoritative interpretations to overcome mandatory provisions of which they disapprove. Were such an attempt successful, it is difficult to see how the peace, unity and purity of the denomination would be promoted. I hope I have not bored you and the readers of The Layman Online with this overly long answer to your question. God bless you in all you do Chris Scruggs Advent Presbyterian Church Cordova, Tenn. A reply regarding the letter from Mississippi Presbytery February 27, 2008 A question: With whom would the complaint against the New Wineskins Association of Churches and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church be filed? The World Alliance of Reformed Churches? Federal/state court? The Evangelical Presbyterian Church Permanent Judicial Commission? Dave Moody Trinity Presbyterian Church (NWAC-PCUSA) 'Once again, the PCUSA stands polity on its head' February 26, 2008 Concerning Covenant Presbyterian Church in Fort Meyer, Fla., a letter from General Presbyter Rev. Graham Hart is quoted as declaring that the presbytery is "safeguarding the rights, as per the Book of Order in G-8.0600, of the significant and sizable group of loyal PCUSA members who wish to remain as Covenant Presbyterian Church, PCUSA." He is also quoted as saying, "While 787 members at Covenant's congregational meeting on Feb. 3, 2008, voted for dismissal, 554 members, by either not voting (317) or voting against dismissal (237), did not express that desire." (Emphasis added.) And once again, the Presbyterian Church (USA) stands its polity on its head. They are oh so concerned about the Book of Order when it supports their foreordained result, but when it doesn't they just ignore it. So, they apply G-8.0600, but not G-7.0305 and G-7.0308. Per the Book of Order, a quorum for a congregational meeting is 10 percent of the active members, unless the congregation asks for a lesser percentage, or the congregation adopts a greater quorum. Decisions are made by majority rule. Thus, on the reported membership of Covenant, a meeting of 134 people could have made any other binding decision with on a vote of 68 members (50 percent plus 1). But at a meeting attended by nearly eight times the required quorum, a majority of 550 was insufficient in the eyes of the presbytery. The Book of Order does not allow absentee balloting or proxies. Yet, the presbytery assumes that those who had notice of the meeting and elected not to participate must be counted as voting against dismissal. Sounds like a de facto absentee ballot to me. And consider: Even if the absentees could be properly counted as "no" votes, the decision to leave would have carried by 233 votes. But then, in the PCUSA, application of and obedience to the Constitution is also optional. Michael R. 'Mac' McCarty The PCUSA has 'failed me' February 26, 2008 Twenty-two years ago, our newly called pastor said to me in a concerned voice, "Jack, pay attention to what is going on at the denominational level." At the time, I had no clue as to what he meant. I thought, wrongly, that the denomination always did what was right by the Word of God, but I followed his advice, much to my disillusionment. The Peacemaking Study, the Re-Imagining Conference, the ordination of lesbian pastors, same-sex marriages, passage of G-0106b, divestment actions, declining church membership, efforts by renewal organizations, the PUP report – told me that the Presbyterian Church (USA) was on a course leading to extinction. The most recent action – an overture by the presbyteries of Cincinnati and John Knox to eliminate from the Book of Order G-6.0106b, which requires fidelity in marriage between one man and one woman, and chastity in singleness. Scripture is quite clear – homosexual behavior is a sin and an abomination. Why not an overture to eliminate the Seventh Commandment, Thou shall not commit adultery? Why not an overture to eliminate the Ninth Commandment, Thou shall not bear false witness? Why not an overture to eliminate the First Commandment, Thou shall have no other Gods before me? Why not eliminate the Old and New Testaments entirely? The presbyteries of Cincinnati and John Knox can count on support from the presbyteries of Twin Cities and San Francisco, which have recently ordained homosexuals, as well as support from the PUP staff, the stated clerk and the General Assembly staff in Louisville. The arguments for ordaining gays are ridiculous: "They are being treated as second-class citizens," "God loves them also," "Allow them freedom of conscience," "We must use their gifts," Diversity is healthy." Nowhere is there ever mentioned being faithful to the Word of God. My will be done cancels Thy will be done. Advocates for ordaining gays know they are driving members out of this denomination, so that must be their purpose. But they don't care. They want their selfish views to take priority over every thing else. The blame for this sorry state of affairs falls on the clergy. Pastors conduct same sex-marriages without being disciplined. Many pastors keep their congregations in the dark regarding denominational matters. Many pastors won't speak up at presbytery meetings. They "go-along-to-get-along." My church has suffered large membership losses because of anti-Biblical behavior in the PCUSA. My attention to matters of faith has been diverted. This letter proves it. Jack Vanderbleek elder Northeast Presbyterian Church St. Petersburg, Fla. A reply regarding Achtemeier's attempt to reverse the rulings of the GAPJC February 26, 2008 Based on Achtemeier's actions, I would not give him the label "evangelical," as some have called him. He is neo-orthodox and now increasingly neo-liberal. Let's not confuse him with being an evangelical. I know that he seeks peace in our denomination, but there will never be peace if it comes down to compromising the clear Word of God. It is painful to see this coming from him, having studied with both of his parents. Greg Wiest Glade Run UP Church Valencia, Pa. Are we even 'Presbyterian?' February 26, 2008 With all of the infighting happening within the denomination on issues ranging from homosexuality, Israel, abortion and ordination standards, I think we have focus on some of the underlying issues. How "Presbyterian" are we ... really? I serve a congregation that I believe is fairly typical in its outset. I would say that most congregants don't know what a "presbytery" is or what it means to be "Presbyterian." We have elders who have never read the Book of Order or The Book of Confessions. Most of our members have no idea what Reformed theology is or who John Calvin was. Maybe that says more about our church education than the denomination but, again, I don't think we're untypical. There's not much we can do to rectify this situation. First of all, we don't use the denomination's Sunday school curriculum, largely because they're awful. We wasted how many millions of dollars on a curriculum that is theologically untenable and practically un-usable (and I've tried!). We don't even consider the denomination's Vacation Bible School curriculum for the same reasons. We don't use the Presbyterian hymnal because it's un-singable. We don't use much of the Book of Common Worship because it has more in common with the Roman Catholic Missal than with the historic Reformed faith. We don't use the New Revised Standard Version, preferring instead the NIV or the ESV, because of the liberal tendency in the NRSV's translation. We sponsor non-Presbyterian mission agencies because we are more interested in spreading the Gospel than in political advocacy. We support our local crisis pregnancy center and we oppose our own denomination's stance on abortion. We don't read Presbyterian's Today and the congregation's Bible studies are more likely to come from Saddleback, InterVarsity Press or Willow Creek than any of the denominational resources. We're more interested in being "Christian" than "Presbyterian" to the point that the word "Presbyterian" has ceased to be meaningful for a large percent of our congregation. I'm not saying this to be mean, but because I think this congregation is rather commonplace from some of the conversations I've had. The question becomes: How do you keep an organization together when the only thing we have in common is the name "Presbyterian" and the seal on the sign? Bob Price associate pastor First Presbyterian Church Downers Grove, Ill. A reply regarding 'the Presbyterian construct' February 26, 2008 Everything you said here [Eric Wells, Letters, February 25, 2008] I agree with, Amen. The governmental structure of Protestant Presbyterianism is not only Biblically sound, it is what our American democratic system is based on and why I renounced the Roman Catholic Church and the quagmire of popery and embraced the Reformed Faith and am now a confessed Presbyterian Protestant. Dudley A. Davis Lakewood, N.J. 'It is fully appropriate that questions be raised' February 26, 2008 Last week, The Layman Online carried a link to an article by Herb Denenberg, "Is The PCUSA Peacemaking or Promoting More Hatred?" On Feb. 21, The Layman Online posted a critical (and frankly puzzling) letter to the editor from former RCA missionary Raymond Weiss. I'm fairly sure I could not disagree more strongly with the letter writer's specific criticism of The Layman Online or with the rationale offered to support it. Though the writer's intention is probably clear, I found the use of scare quotes around the phrase "friend in the Middle East" peculiar; I was more mystified by the "overwhelming odds" the author seems to suggest representatives of the Presbyterian Church (USA) are struggling against in terms of persuading "Presbyterians and the world." It would seem to me that U.N. conferences and votes, the actions of various colleges and universities, the stances of numerous unions, the public statements of various celebrities, the unremitting activism of other mainline denominations, and the relative silence of majorities of Presbyterian members on the issue suggest that large numbers already share the author's preconceptions. The author seems to assert that charges of anti-Semitism are leveled against all those who merely do not believe "Israel can do no wrong." That could not be farther from the truth. Questions of anti-Semitism in several mainline denominations arise because of the problematic statements and actions undertaken by official representatives of those denominations. Such problematic actions, statements and policies include:
Will Spotts North East, Md. A reply to the letter by Larry Brown February 26, 2008 It is my conviction that feminism is a form of naturalism in that it is a philosophy of class struggle – which is one of the primary motifs of naturalism as a philosophy; i.e., "survival of the fittest" elevated to the position of positive change agent, rather than that of decay retardant. Naturalism applied to race is racism; naturalism applied to economics is socialism; and naturalism applied to the two sexes is feminism. It is also my conviction that a Reformed church, having never been exposed to this form of feminist naturalism, would simply never have ever thought to place women into the high authoritative positions of the church in contradiction of the second chapter of First Timothy, as the history of the Reformed churches do indeed demonstrate. Therefore, I do see naturalism at work in your ranks. I certainly don't have any joy in having to say that, nor was it the purpose of my letter to focus upon it. I would think that the purpose of my letter would be seen as positive by you. I am glad that there is talk of a severance from you and the Presbyterian Church (USA) because it is further my conviction that this would benefit the peace, unity and purity of your communion – something I think you would want your brother in the faith to want for you. I certainly hope you wish that for us here in the Presbyterian Church in America. There is no church on earth but what the world, the flesh and the devil are constantly trying to poison and rend asunder, and both of our communions are but a short season of a scarcity of God's grace away from mirroring the decay and death we see in such fallen organizations as the PCUSA. Prayer and constant vigilance are ever the needs of our current hour. Grace to you in your endeavors in Africa Rev. Russ Westbrook PCA teaching elder A reply regarding the exchange between Larry Brown and Russ Westbrook February 26, 2008 In response to the Rev. Dr. Brown's response to Rev. Westbrook, I would like to register my own "Amen." I myself was going to respond to Russ, but then I decided against it. But now that Larry (who is a member of the same presbytery as I) has replied, I would like to do so as well. And very simply, I would like Rev. Westbrook to please, in the name of Christian integrity, retract his inappropriate jibe at the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. To accuse the EPC of being infected with "the modern mythology of naturalism (especially in its feminist manifestation)" is wholly unfounded. As far as I can see, the majority of the ministers in the EPC have graduated from the same seminaries as the majority of the ministers in Presbyterian Church in America, Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church or the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. And having served for all of my years as a teaching elder in the EPC on presbytery and General Assembly committees, I can affirm that there is no taint of a naturalistic or feminist theology in our church. I have seen all of the marks of the church manifested at every level: Word, sacrament, discipline and loving fellowship are everywhere evident in the EPC. Further, to assert (as some of our uninformed brethren in the PCA do) that the EPC is "loosy-goosy" or "in-the-closet-liberals" when it comes to theology or polity is patently false. The women's ordination issue (which I assume Rev. Westbrook is referring to) is a polity issue in the EPC, not a theological issue. In the EPC, the right of each church court (session, presbytery and General Assembly) to call its own officers is inviolable so long as those officers subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of our church. In point of fact, the EPC has been described by a leading light in the PCA as "the most consistently Presbyterian church in the history of the Reformed movement." I believe that this comment arose from the fact that we are thoroughly orthodox, yet with a generous, warm, evangelical and loving spirit. I am myself a graduate of Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Miss. Theologically, I and everyone in my presbytery would be fine fits for the PCA. However, I have chosen to be a member of the EPC because I believe in the irenic character, the loving fellowship and the warm evangelical spirit of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. I am delighted to be in a denomination where, in seven years as a minister, I have not seen a serious argument, an angry word spoken, or even a close vote in my session, my presbytery or our General Assembly. Rather, all of our meetings have been characterized by love for the brethren, prayer for one another, the work of the Kingdom and passionate worship of our Triune God. There is unity in the Spirit, in the Word of God and in love for the Lamb in all of our meetings. You see, it is not theology that divides us. It is, rather, the ethos of the EPC that is so special. If Rev. Westbrook would like to contact me or any other of my fellow ministers, I would be more than happy to disabuse him of his low view of the Reformed character of our church. At this time in the history of American Presbyterianism, it is at best unwise, and at worst sinful, to cast such stones. As Dr. Brown said, this is a time for conservative Presbyterians to stand fast against the wiles of the Evil One as he seeks to undermine a Biblical witness in North America. Rev. Austin Olive Regarding the Knox overture: 'Enough is enough' February 25, 2008 Didn't take long for the "evangelicals" on the PUP task force to react to the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission's rejection of the task force's misguided efforts. Peace, Unity and Pride (yes, Pride) seems to be more important than Purity to this gang of apostates. They must feel that their years of work, and then the back-door acceptance of scruples as a means of getting around the essentials of our constitution, is what really counts. Never mind that Peace and Unity went out the window with their actions. They now express surprise at the rejection by the GAPJC and many congregations and seek ways to counter this ruling by the PCUSA court. Pride, pride, pride. Many laymen expressed the feeling that the denomination might mend its ways and return to being Christ's witness. Achtemeier's overture points the PCUSA back to more conflict. When is the Lord going to say "enough is enough." Bill Arthur Greenville, S.C. The Presbyterian construct ... warts and all February 25, 2008 As a professed Anglophile, I gleefully reiterate that the tripartite separation of powers in our nation's government is predicated upon the Presbyterian governmental construct, save only in that Calvin himself advocated a strict, regulative theocratic format. The dynamic is as complex as the eclectic historical nuances are interesting and, to say the least, quite in keeping with our Anglo-Saxon representative urges. Yet, it rather appears as if church and state have willfully deviated from the proviso which gives the construct its efficacy and acts upon its sanctity – inherent and instrumental. It is the proposition held fervently by Knox, Calvin and the Founding Fathers of the American nation – the belief that Providence is the sole factor which guarantees the success, fruition, liberty and happiness that, through Christ, is already our portion. Clearly, the Providence contingency is ill-calibrated to entertain the egregious, sensational lobbying that has become pandemic in both. Activism engaged in by the likes of the Rev. Increase Mather or Rev. Thomas Hooker, for example, was far more in concert with representative republicanism. Despite ebbs and flows in motifs or tactics that could be regarded as inconsistent, their mere presence underscores the prerequisite of supplication for the Father's mercy through discernment that has proven mortal to parliamentary vitality in both temporal and sectarian pursuits. In the Presbyterian Church (USA), there is one variation that arguably is far more asset than liability. Anyone who has taken any note at all of the turbulence in the PCUSA would have to at least wager that it would be tenfold if the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission was comprised of appointees by the General Assembly moderator or, more frightful yet, a stated clerk with no term limitations. Terminologies like "packing the court," "ad hoc review" and "runaway judiciaries" would take on disastrously new meanings. Eric Wells Boardman, Ohio A reply to Rev. Russ Westbrook February 25, 2008 I read the following evaluation [Letters, February 19, 2008] of my denomination, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, from the Presbyterian Church in America's Rev. Russ Westbrook:
As for the "feminist manifestation," it is true that some, not all, EPC churches have women elders. This is why PCUSA churches bolting from their denomination are choosing us over the PCA. Does Rev. Westbrook assume that all women elders are "feminists?" In the nearly 20 years that I've been in the EPC, I don't recall meeting someone that appeared to be a feminist – my late wife certainly wasn't! Most people in the EPC that I know would be considered to be to the right of Jonathan Edwards. Can Rev. Westbrook substantiate his comments about my denomination? I know that I certainly wouldn't attempt to make broad sweeping statements about the people of the PCA that I've known. I remember when I was an M.Div. student at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Miss., in the late '80s. We had an EPC student fellowship that met weekly for prayer. We were then known as "The Snake Handlers" because, in those days, that was the PCA interpretation of the EPC. That, to me, was an egregious example of ignorance, prejudice and stereotyping. At a time like this, it would be great if conservative Presbyterians – PCA, EPC, Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, New Wineskins – could link arms in a common cause and fight together against liberalism and secularism. Infighting amongst the conservatives was how the liberals took over in the first place. We actually could learn something from the liberals about maintaining solidarity in order to achieve and maintain political advantage. Finally, in an unrelated matter, I read about the PCUSA dropping 93,000 members this past year. The same article noted that the denominations that comprised the PCUSA had 4.2 million members in 1965, and membership of the amalgamated body now stands at 2.1 million, a 50-percent loss in just over 40 years. When I was ordained in the EPC in 1990, we had 40,000 members, including the Argentine Presbytery. Today, without the Argentinians, but with the New Wineskins "transitional" presbytery, we have something like 100,000 - a gain of 150 percent in 18 years. The PCUSA has lost 31 percent of its members since the amalgamation of 1983. I wonder if the hierarchs of the PCUSA ever ask themselves, "Gee, are we doing something wrong?" Larry Brown African Bible College Lilongwe, Malawi Mark Achtemeier's continued assault on the peace and purity of the church February 22, 2008 As many readers of these letters know, I have been asking a simple question of the so-called evangelical members of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Purity and Unity for a couple of weeks. That question was about how they explain the activities and apostasies being carried out in Twin Cities and San Francisco in the Capetz and Larges decisions. None of these people has had the gumption or courage to answer those questions. Now, however, I think I have at least a partial answer in Dr. Achtemeier's own words. Quoting from a letter he sent to his presbytery commissioners, he said:
It seems from the quote above that the so-called evangelical members of the task force were not fooled, were not confused and were less than forthcoming as they told everyone in earshot that "... this changes nothing." From his own words above, it seems more than obvious that the intent all along was to enable and empower apostasy and heresy by the progressive, liberal and humanist-dominated Covenant and MLP camps. I hope and pray that the upcoming General Assembly is faithful enough and courageous enough to eliminate the disgraceful PUP report from our polity. Rev. Jim Yearsley Tampa, Fla. 'Silent majority needs to rise up and be silent no more' February 22, 2008 This is a great article. It is factual, well written and, as Fox News says, "Fair & Balanced." It should be mandatory reading for every member of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Unfortunately, many churches are not willing to face up to the damage that a very small minority are doing to our denomination. That would not be politically correct. The silent majority needs to rise up and be silent no more. Ed McLean member First Presbyterian Church Maitland, Fla. 'Not a very pretty picture to contemplate' February 21, 2008 We really need to stop projecting the demise of the Presbyterian Church (USA) in X number of years based on current losses expressed as a percentage of current membership. The math doesn't work that way. For example, let's say that our annual losses equal 50 percent. "Common sense" would say that the denomination would die in two years. Not so. Fifty percent of any number is never 0. What the losses do predict is much more than simple demise: 1. About 24 percent of the congregations are growing. The larger part of that 24 percent is conservative. The result of putting those two stats together is that, at the congregational level, the PCUSA is now becoming incrementally more conservative every year and the liberal denominational apparatus is increasingly out of touch with its constituency. However, this conservative drift will likely slow down in the near future because most of those conservative congregations leaving are much larger than average. 2. The membership of 76 percent of our congregations is getting smaller every year. Smaller congregations have fewer dollars to contribute to the denomination. The denomination will grow weaker every year and will likely increase the pressure on presbyteries and congregations to pay per capita, thus alienating more congregations. 3. The PCUSA will therefore most likely remain conflicted and become smaller and smaller and less relevant to the ordinary life of the U.S.A. Witness the marginal status of the Unitarian Universalist churches. Not a very pretty picture to contemplate, is it? James Quillin New overture idea February 21, 2008 I recently read an article about a 30 day challenge, where a pastor is encouraging those married in his congregation to have sex for 30 days in a row in order to combat the divorce rate. I'm thinking that something like this may help the Presbyterian Church (USA) because:
Kevin T. Smith Mechanicsville, Va. A reply regarding the commentary 'Unless/Until' February 21, 2008 As a retired judge in the state of Washington and an elder in the Presbyterian Church (USA), and in reply to Mr. Adam's article, I think it is a cheap shot by one who apparently likes to keep the pot boiling. If I were writing the opinion, I would have used exactly the same language without any implication that I expected a change. Make no mistake about it, I am a thoroughgoing evangelical and find no room in God's Word for any other legitimate lifestyle than what is described in G-6.0106, but to throw cold water on a very favorable ruling, instead of rejoicing and thanking the Lord for this first victory, is not my idea of either good journalism nor a demonstration of God's grace. Ed Allan Ephrata, Wash. Erroneous PCUSA decline conclusions February 21, 2008 Several letters mention that, at the 2 percent per annum decline in Presbyterian Church (USA) membership, it will be gone in 50 years. I should point out that the mathematically correct calculation is to raise 98 percent to the 50th power, which yields about 36 percent remaining in 50 years – or about 750,000 members. Of course, losing 45,000 members per year will get it to zero, but the annual decline soon becomes much more than 2 percent. Enough for today's math lesson. John R. Haley elder Kirk of the Hills Tulsa, Okla. A reply regarding the membership losses February 21, 2008 It's all about numbers. Logic would say prune the membership roll, but I remember a particularly nasty situation when a young woman was removed from the roll because she had not attended in years. Her father was a longtime active member and left the church because of this. In other situations, people are kept on the roll just to keep the numbers up. Pete Simpson Bloomington, Minn. Wrong emphasis February 21, 2008 While there may be plenty to attack in the Presbyterian Church (USA), I do not know why The Layman continually prints articles attacking the PCUSA's stand on the Middle East. I served with Presbyterian missionaries in Lebanon, Iraq and Bahrain. Some of them were more liberal and some were evangelical, but all of us have seen the Palestinian/Israeli question from a very different angle than the popular American "Israel can do no wrong" attitude and the "You're anti-Semitic if you don't think that way." Count the number of Israelis killed in any given year recently and count how many Palestinians have been killed and you will see that the Palestinians are not doing the most killing. Ask the Christian Peacemakers Teams (Mennonite) about the continual harassment of Palestinians being done by the Israeli settlers and their land grabbing of Palestinian land with the Israeli army standing by and watching. Or consider the wall/fence – while it may help some in keeping the two sides apart, it has been mostly built on confiscated Palestinian land and in areas blocks Palestinian farmers from their groves and grazing land and Palestinians from freedom of movement within their own territories. Or ask the pastors and people of the very evangelical Presbyterian Church in Bethlehem about how the life is being sucked out of the town by the stranglehold the Israelis have on it. I do not justify all of the language that the PCUSA committee may have used, but against overwhelming odds they are trying to help Presbyterians and the world to see that justice is being denied by our "friend in the Middle East." Raymond Weiss former RCA missionary Orange City, Iowa It's a kairos moment, alright, a real one February 21, 2008 The betrothal between the Church and her bridegroom, Christ Jesus, is being systemically destabilized while relationships of the abominable variety command emphasis in its exclusion. Why? Exactly what would God be calling us to do differently? The elect are reminded in the Dordrecht Confession, First Head of Doctrine, Article VIII, that there are not various decrees of election, but one. The very notion that we might be called to do something "different" wreaks of yet another trend of thought anathema to Calvinism, namely dispensationalism. It rather appears that all the acidulous trends that have caused our denomination to hemorrhage as it has are traced to deliberate, methodical deviations from the Word and sacrament. We in the Presbyterian Church (USA) are clearly being warned that those who engage in heteromorphic portrayals of Christ's teachings will not be held guiltless. In other words, yes, it is a kairos moment, but not one to reaffirm the derisive tendency toward mainstreaming and inclusion at the expense of Biblical correctness. A kairos moment? Yes, but not one to directly or tacitly endorse those who wish to inundate liturgy and worship with anything the Bible refers to as an abomination. This is a most opportune time to reaffirm the beliefs held sacrosant by the overwhelming majority in our Reformed tradition of faith. As Joan Gray points out, more accurately than she probably realizes, this may very well be our last chance. Eric Wells Boardman, Ohio PJC rules 'in favor of the Word of God' February 19, 2008 Now that the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission has ruled in favor of the Word of God, as evangelicals we should show our support for the PJC by at least paying our per capita and our mission giving to General Assembly for this year. I know the battle is not over, but we have a duty to encourage and support those entities at the national level that are being the answer to our prayers. Let's slow down the rush to leave our denomination and see if the Holy Spirit is going to bring about the revival we have been praying to see. We at least know that our Constitution cannot be changed by end-around maneuvers and that the process will be held to the standard of integrity involving all of the presbyteries – as it should have been before PUP. Rick Gillespie-Mobley Toby Gillespie-Mobley co-pastors Glenville New Life Community Church PCUSA Cleveland, Ohio Praise God for the blessing of His Providence February 19, 2008 While the battlefield practicalities of the Presbyterian Church (USA)'s threat to sever ties with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church are not lost on me, I cannot but praise God for this blessing of His Providence toward our brothers in the EPC. The modern mythology of naturalism (especially in its feminist manifestation)has seeped into the EPC to some degree from its inception, and this poisoned spring can only have been further fed by maintaining some form of official relationship with an apostate communion like the PCUSA. In breaking with the EPC, the PCUSA will lose much of its ability to further harm that manifestation of Christ's Body – and that can't help but be good! Thanks be to God! Rev. Russ Westbrook teaching elder Riverside Presbyterian Church PCA Growing the church to zero! February 19, 2008 The Presbyterian Church (USA) entered the year 2006 with a membership of 2,267,118. The PCUSA is forecast to end the year 2007 with a membership of 2,171,775. The difference is 95,343. Apparently, this represents the normal attrition of 45,343 plus a special growth allowance of 50,000 for whole congregations leaving en masse. This great and dynamic growth should not be a cause for concern, however, because in the following year, the growth is forecast to return to normal with an attrition of a more typical 43,436. Since this reflects an annual loss of only two percent of the membership, there is nothing at all about which to be concerned. At that rate, it will take 50 years for the last member to leave. The lights can continue to burn brightly in Louisville for at least another half-century! After that, perhaps the foundation's endowment will allow the lights to stay on even after the membership grows to zero! George Hill Port Allen, La. Judging trees by the fruit they bear February 19, 2008 What kind of growth? What legitimate growth can the "leadership" of the Presbyterian Church (USA) possibly expect in light of the profane bureaucratic banditry and ethic of urbane convenience that is singularly responsible for the decline of the denomination? Indeed, you have been weighed in the balances and have been found wanting:
Keep it up … your just due, as promised in Scripture, will arrive. Eric Wells, Boardman, Ohio Per capita: Why? February 19, 2008 I am trying to understand the logic of per capita. After having been raised in the Presbyterian Church (USA), and now being part of another fellowship, it just does not make sense. The need of the PCUSA to raise per capita is a clear parallel to the Parable of the Talents. The PCUSA is not being a good steward (spiritually) of what God has given them and God is taking from them (monetarily). The PCUSA then needs to find out ways to bring in more money from fewer people. This is of extra detriment to smaller churches that do not have extra resources to "pay" for "active" members who do not attend, plus keep their other essential programs going. In the communion of which I am know a part, each church tithes their offerings to the bishop who, in turn ,takes what he receives from the churches and tithes to the patriarch. In this system, the diocese only has money to run its business if the local parish is fruitful, and the international church only has money to run its business if the diocese is fruitful. This seems like a much better plan to me. Dennis Russell Any guilt? February 18, 2008 It's sad that Paul Capetz and Lisa Larges don't see the correlation between this:
You, Paul and Lisa, are the reason so many of us are leaving. Any twinges of guilt? Probably not. … Roger Clark elder |
|
| February
2008 letters, page 2 Home · News · PLC Publications · The Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |