All churches need to stick to teaching the Word
Posted Tuesday, December 27, 2011
What a great article [“Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies God has prepared praise,” letter to the editor, posted 12/23/11].
It burdens my heart to see educated people that are ministers and teachers take God’s Word and twist or spin it to mean what they want it to mean. Do they really realize they are going to suffer spiritual death because of their teachings? These are some of the false teachers that it speaks of in Revelations in the messages to the seven churches. It wouldn’t be quite so bad if these false teachers were the only ones to suffer spiritual death but they will take many others with them, the ones that follow their teachings. All churches need to stick to teaching the Word as it is spelled out in the Holy Bible.
Loren, I encourage you to stick to your principles and teach your children as you indicated in your letter. These are trying times but it is God that is in charge and if we follow His teachings, we will win. All this twist and spin that some people apply to Scripture is a death trap of Satan.
I thank God for the ministers and leaders that stick to and teach God’s Word as it is spelled out in the Bible. George Hook Lees Summit, Mo.
Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies God has prepared praise
Posted Friday, December 23, 2011
Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD,
the fruit of the womb is a reward.
Like arrows in the hand of a warrior
are the children of one’s youth.
Blessed is the man
who fills his quiver with them. — Psalm 127:3-5
Did he not make (husband and wife) one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. —Malachi 2:16
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you lie down, and when you rise. —Deuteronomy 6:4-7
The month of December saw the arrival of Miss Katherine Grace Golden. As her earthly father, it is my tremendous honor and privilege, not to mention my solemn duty and responsibility, to raise and nurture her in the love and admonition of the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 6:4). I am to teach her the love of her heavenly Father, modeling the love that He has for all His children. I am to teach her the love Christ has for the Church in modeling that love in my love for her mother, my wife. I am to teach her to trust Jesus Christ alone for her salvation, to teach her to love and obey God, to teach her what He expects from her, that she might grow up in His image, seeking to conform all her words, thoughts, and deeds to His character. I am to teach her to find her delight in the Lord and to make herself a delight to Him.
And it is my delight to sing to her psalms and hymns and spiritual songs. “Jesus loves me, this I know,” I sing to her, “for the Bible tells me so.” She does not yet understand the words, but I long to see the truth of them flourish in her life. It is the Bible that mediates Jesus Christ to us. It sets the context of written revelation of God in which and through which He is made known to us, for apart from the Bible, Jesus Christ, the Lord and Savior of the world, cannot be known to us. And all of Scripture must be taught, read, and believed, for it is the whole counsel of God, and to deny or misinterpret its truths is to distort the context in which Jesus Christ is made known, and thus to obscure or hide Him from those who would seek to know Him.
Thus it is that the Medieval Catholic Church robbed the people of God of the joy of knowing Jesus Christ by placing Church tradition as an authority over Scripture, submitting the Word of God to the doctrines and commandments of men, distorting and obscuring its message. And thus it is that contemporary Theological Liberalism robs the people of God of the joy of knowing Jesus Christ by placing historical and literary criticism as an authority over Scripture, again submitting the Word of God to the doctrines and commandments of men, distorting and obscuring its message. Unto such, the Lord Jesus said, “Let the little children come unto me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt. 19:14) And again, “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Mt. 18:6)
Such are wise in the ways of the world but foolish in the ways of God, “for the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. … God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong.” (I Cor. 1:25,27) Indeed, the Lord Jesus prayed, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children.” (Mt. 11:25) And again, “Unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt. 18:3) Children hear the Word of God and are inclined to trust it. But the rebellious in heart believe that they know better than God and seek to undermine trust and confidence in His Word by developing sophisticated arguments that would make the Word of God out to be nothing more than the doctrines and commandments of men. The God of Scripture for some reason or other does not meet their expectations of who He should be or how He should behave toward His creatures, and so they reject Him in favor of an idol of their own design. But children trust the God of Scripture as He is and make no demands on Him to conform to their preconceived expectations.
“Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have perfected praise.” (Mt. 21.16) My newborn daughter is designed by God to praise Him with every fiber of her being and with every breath that she takes. I pray that she would never lose that quality. And I pray that as she grows, that she would grow in the knowledge and love of the only Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, trusting, loving, obeying, and praising Him, and making Him known to a world that desperately needs Him.
Loren Golden Overland Park, Kan.
Pastors need to know that they are cared for, prayed for and supported
Posted Friday, December 23, 2011
Thank you for this article, especially at this time of year which is filled with so much extra work for pastors (end of year reports, budgets, additional service preparation, visits, etc.) pastors need to know that we are cared for, prayed for and supported. Rev. Bill Wisneski Honey Brook, Pa.
God bless the undershepherds who faithfully uphold the Word of God
Posted Wednesday, December 21, 2011
One of the most encouraging articles I have read as a minister of Word and sacrament. So grateful to pastor a flock who practice these principles. God bless the undershepherds who faithfully uphold the Word of God in the pulpit and his people in his prayers!
Pastor Ken Folmsbee Community Church, Howey in the Hills, Fla.
A true calling: To be a friend to the pastor
Posted Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Theologically I am wired a bit differently than the schematic of The Layman. I come here to read and understand what is going on in our denomination. I seldom choose to contribute a letter as I respect the concept that an organization should not be hounded by people who only have the goal of causing trouble. But Carmen’s challenge to minister to your pastor gets a hearty AMEN from me.
I left high school a year early to enroll in my nearby “Baptist Preacher Factory” college. And at the time I thought that was my calling. Over time I realized my wiring was a bit different than that schematic also.
I have lived in eight states and worked in disciplines where relocation was part of the lifestyle. In my Baptist days I adhered to the concept in vogue that “The pastor has been called of God” thus it was appropriate look to your pastor much in the manner of a Chief Executive Officer. In one turbulent situation I stopped in to visit my pastor, asked him to go down the street for a cup of coffee where I advised him: “They have called you to be pastor. They have not called me any such a task. I will be leaving the congregation rather than stay and be a problem to you.” Several years later he and I found ourselves working together. He told me that at the time he thought that action on my part was terrible and hurtful. As time passed, he came to realize the wisdom of my move, and the fact I took my action in love. Our friendship blossomed.
Somewhere in that time zone … maybe age 30, I realized that I indeed had a true calling: To be a friend to the pastor. (Some pastor’s will not allow you to be their friend. At that point such a calling requires that you go and find a pastor who needs a friend.)
With a chuckle I tell people these days “I am training my 37th pastor.” And I say it sometimes in the presence of my pastor. And he chuckles, too, for I was a member of the PNC that interviewed him, selected him, and walked with him through the process of being called to our congregation.
The care and feeding of a Presbyterian pastor is a different task than the relationship with a Baptist in the 1970s and 80s. If you are a church member, be sensitive to the needs of your pastor. What level of ministry is missing as he or she works with the session, with the presbytery, with the community and with the congregation. Maybe what you are trying to give, wanting to give, is not what the pastor needs.
And pastors: Be sensitive to people around you who may be trying their very best to be your friend, and in a sense pastor to you. You may have built a fence around your life that prevents the relationship from blooming. I’ve tried to work in a pasture that had those fences in the wrong place. In that case we both found new pastures.
Vernon Kuehn Cumming, Ga.
Reflections on Outlook webinar
Posted Friday, December 16, 2011
I want to express my heartfelt thanks to Carmen Fowler LaBerge for the thoughtful, intelligent critique of my recent Webinar that she has prepared for the Layman audience. While she certainly took me to task for some things I said and for omitting some things she thinks were overlooked, she wrote in both a tone and substance that could have been expressed directly face-to-face without insult or embarrassment. In the process she has honored the friendship and collegiality we’ve shared for nearly two decades.
A few brief reflections:
1. Most of the topics not covered in the Webinar were left out for two reasons: many of them have been discussed, debated and analyzed at great length in print, on the Web, in dialogue groups and in governing body debates. I aimed to raise some topics that generally get neglected, especially when members or congregations countenance the possibility of departing from our denomination – matters about the ethos of the PCUSA that don’t become evident until they have been abandoned. The other reason I didn’t tackle them was that I knew for sure that such subjects would be raised in the question-and-response time following my presentation.
Indeed, most of those topics were raised by the participants. Some were responded to in the final half hour of the broadcast, but since way too many were asked to cover in that time, I have responded to them in print. It was sent via email to the participants. That email was going out just about the same time that the Layman critique was getting posted on the Layman.org site. So, while the webinar can be purchased and live questions/responses are available for purchase on the Outlook’s site, the rest of the questions and responses have been posted on the pres-outlook.org web site for all to read. I invite your readers to check it out.
2. Carmen questions my use of the word “church” for the PCUSA. I certainly agree with her that denominational institutions and structures are, for the most part, human constructs. They are not sacred in the way that the Church universal (with a capital C) is. I’m merely using the term as virtually all denominations do: we self-identify as the Presbyterian Church (USA) or Evangelical Presbyterian Church or Presbyterian Church in America, etc. These denominations all know that they do not compose the whole and only Church – very few denominations in the world would make such a claim. But they do all self-identify as a church because they not only are the aggregate of hundreds or thousands or millions of believers; they also have covenanted to live the life of discipleship and mission in partnership. They have “tied the knot” together via vows expressed one to another in services of sacred worship. Those vows – especially the ordination vows taken by elders and deacons – commit ourselves to live a life of mutual accountability in service to our Lord. In fact, as my Webinar was suggesting, when that community is suffering the blows of conflict and trouble, we all ought to do our level best to seek to be reconciled, restored and reformed, while resisting our tendency to separate and split up.
By the way, I stated that the title of the Webinar was an intended misnomer: a hook begging people to say, “But it’s not our Church; it’s Christ’s Church.” I affirmed that, indeed, it’s NOT ours but his.
3. When speaking of differentiation, I certainly used the blunt line, “Get over it,” but my intended meaning wasn’t quite as Carmen heard it (I’ll take the blame for not communicating clearly enough). I wasn’t appealing to orthodox Presbyterians to get over the fact that unorthodox folks want to self-identify. My audience at the moment was those self-described moderates, a/k/a ecclesiasts, many of whom hate all forms of self-differentiation and even hear such terms as an insult against their church. Some of them use their positions of power to punish those self-identifying by such labels as “Confessing Church” or “Fellowship of Presbyterians.” I was telling THEM to GET OVER IT. I was intending to support both the right and healthfulness of folks differentiating via self-chosen labels, especially by those whose differentiation is intended to avoid splitting away from the church.
4. The questions Carmen follows with are well formed and invite further discussion. Some are addressed in my Q&R paper. Others beg for further discussion – but this response is getting too long at the moment. I’d love to discuss them in an ongoing way.
5. And, finally, Carmen’s closing is wonderful. Such a closing to my webinar only would have made it better. Our hope is to be found centrally in the proclamation of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, in witnessing to the power of the Gospel, turning more to Scripture and away from theological error, recommitting to make disciples of Jesus, and ultimately in the triumphal hope and promise of the resurrection. Amen to that.
Blessings to you,
Jack Haberer, Editor
The Presbyterian Outlook
More comments on women’s ordination
Posted Thursday, December 15, 2011
Thank you, Martha E. Leatherman, for sharing your thoughts on the ordination of women. I agree with you completely.
If compromise is in order, I would have no problem choosing a denomination that does not ordain women over the PCUSA which no longer believes that the Bible is the word of God or that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.
If the PCA is good enough for Tim Keller, it is good enough for me. After all, he ministers effectively in New York City and plants churches in the largest and most sophisticated cities in the world.
Cathy McKinnis
Faith Presbyterian Church
Women’s ordination letter is a valuable lesson
Posted Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Martha Leatherman’s letter, “Some thoughts on women’s ordination” (12/13/11) is a valuable lesson to every believer. In that letter, she describes the conflicts between our ego and God’s will, and between a purely human, rational perspective and one of the Spirit.
I would again address the issue of “whose ordination?”
Church organizations have established their own systems of order, which include rules qualifying individuals for service. But we know that there are individuals who have served the kingdom of God mightily who were never “ordained” by any church body.
My point is that the true qualification for God’s service is from the Almighty, Himself. It begins with His call, which should never be denied by the individual (though I know I have and very likely do not know how many times I’ve done so!).
So, in addition to the questions Ms. Leatherman has posed to herself for us all to consider, can we add the subject of discernment? The need for each of us to discern God’s will for us? And then the question of our discernment of God’s work in others, to tell the real from the fake.
But back to God’s call — His call is more important and more essential than anything or anyone else. When He calls, are we to ask of Him: “But I’m not ordained!” “I am not prepared!” Ms. Leatherman cites Moses and we know he asked just such questions, and we know God’s response. When He calls, He provides and equips, even if that equipping is ‘only’ complete submission to and total reliance upon the Holy Spirit.
Whatever our role, can any serve well without complete humility before the Father?
Sincerely in Christ,
Paul Hubert
Carmichael, Calif.
Some thoughts on women’s ordination
Posted Tuesday, December 13, 2011
I would like to respond to Charlotte B. Thomas’ letter in the Layman (Another Fight Ahead). I agree that one of the many proverbial “elephants in the room” is the question of women’s ordination. I have a couple of thoughts, and would welcome charitable discussion.
Currently, I served as an elder in my local church’s session. First, I have to ask what God wants of me. What is the chief end of man? To glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Not to be ordained.
What is our conservative objection to the direction the progressives have taken the church? They haven’t been obedient to the Word. If being obedient to God requires me to leave the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the result of my obedience in leaving is that I cannot be ordained as a ruling elder, what is the more important consideration?
In my opinion, it is to be obedient. Carmen Fowler set aside her ordination in submission; pastors and priests have done so for centuries in situations where holding on to their ordination would have compelled them to act contrary to Scripture.
Second, I have been bothered for some time about a subtle sense of entitlement I perceive in many women over their “right” to be ordained.
I try to listen to the arguments of PCA and OPC leaders against the ordination of women, and in listening and praying, I have come to believe that this is an area in which I am very, very tempted to use “justice” in the service of my own pride in my ordination. Why must I be ordained to serve? Yes, my (self-acknowledged) gifts lie in leadership, but why wouldn’t my service to God be cherished by Him as much by my washing dishes every Sunday or ironing linens as it would by sitting on session?
We are reminded over and over that God works through our weaknesses. Can’t God turn us away from service in our areas we perceive as strength and send us to work in our areas of weakness? He did with Moses, and gave him Aaron to lean on. He did with Paul. Paul’s eyesight was reputedly poor. Wouldn’t it have been better (from a human point of view) never to take Paul from his gifts of traveling and planting and encouraging churches? Wouldn’t it have been better (from a human point of view) not to confine Paul in prison so that he was left with little choice but to write to the Church? After all, his “gift” was not his eyesight! If my strength is leadership, maybe He has decided to work in my weakness (submissive humility).
If I decide to go the PCA, it will be because I am convicted that the PCUSA is hopelessly apostate and that my soul is in peril by staying. In that situation, I will gladly set aside my ordination in humble submission to the requirements of my new church, and I will seek God’s call in that setting.
I would see it as a great sin to go to the PCA looking for a fight over this issue. Please, fellow Christians, do not do to the PCA or ERPC what has been done to us.
Martha E. Leatherman
San Antonio, Texas
Impressed with Fellowship documents
Posted Monday, December 12, 2011
I am quite impressed by the Fellowship of Presbyterians polity and theology papers. The use of Union memberships between the PCUSA and the New Reformed Body offers the most promise. The New Reformed Body will offer a place of refuge and a place to gain strength. It will also offer these congregations a unique identity.
By not completely withdrawing from the PCUSA, the Union congregations can continue to try and influence their PCUSA presbytery for good, as well as PCUSA colleges and seminaries. The PCUSA does not lose anything, since the PCUSA maintains an equity interest in each congregation’s property, under the Union Congregation arrangement. The Fellowship of Presbyterian congregations need a common place to gain strength and unite in these increasingly secular times.
John Almquist
Yucaipa, Calif.
PCUSA decline will worsen over time
Posted Monday, December 12, 2011
The Layman reported on July 9, 2010 that the General Assembly had created a 21-person plenipotentiary commission to reorganize the synods and presbyteries so as to reduce costs.
The Layman has published several articles recently on financial problems in the presbyteries, including San Francisco, New York City, and Presbytery of the Cascades, which seem to be typical of the situation all over the country. These financial problems were supposed to be solved by the 21-person commission, but there is no evidence that that the commission has taken any action whatsoever. The commission appears to be a total failure.
For about a decade, the average loss of membership is about 5-6 members per year per congregation. This loss is cumulative and results in a steady decline in revenue at a time when inflation is increasing costs.
One can only expect that the financial situation will get worse in the future as decline of membership and support is expected to continue.
George Hill
Port Allen, La.
The PCUSA’s multiple confessions have contributed to theological confusion
Posted Friday, December 9, 2011
Open letter to the Theological Drafting Group,
I am writing this as an open letter to be shared in public forums.
There are many good affirmations in the document. I appreciate your lifting up of the importance of God’s written Word and your refusal to set it in opposition to God’s incarnate Word. You have stated a strong commitment to salvation through Christ alone. I also believe you have done well by the doctrine of election. So, these are very good elements in this draft.
I do question keeping the entire PCUSA Book of Confessions in a new Reformed Body. I believe the multiciplicity of confessions, all with equal authority, has contributed to theological confusion in our denomination. Every confession and statement is worthy of study but should not, I think, be accorded equal weight as a confessional standard. Frankly, of all the statements in your paper, your comment about the Book of Confessions sounded like a complete cop-out, a refusal to make any theological choice.
I also disagree with the paper’s disavowal of “boundaries.” Boundaries certainly are important and they need to be clearly set out. Concentrating on the Center (i.e., Jesus Christ) sounds very profound in principle, but as you are aware, every caucus in the PCUSA, from the Presbyterian Lay Committee to the More Light Presbyterians, would affirm the same thing. What makes the Fellowship different from other Presbyterian groups?
I must also reiterate what I have said before: this document lacks any theological and ethical commitment to the sanctity of human life. I mention this again because the document does uphold the theological and ethical commitment to fidelity in marriage between one man and one woman. To name that while ignoring the sanctity of life suggests that marriage is a more important issue. Now, of course marriage is an important issue, but so is the deliberate killing of our unborn children, all of whom have been created in God’s image. If you are going to address one ethical issue you cannot very well say to people who care about the sanctity of life, “oh, we’re not going to address ethical issues at this time.”
I also would strongly suggest that in your discussion of the sanctity of marriage there should be language regarding the grave matter of divorce. The prevalence of divorce among Christians, including Christian leaders, is a scandal to the Gospel. How do you respond to that?
You have obviously taken a lot of care in preparing this document and for that I am grateful. I am concerned, however, about the matters I have raised. I hope you will prayerfully consider these issues and others that may arise from others. Rev. John B. Erthein, pastor Euchee Valley Presbyterian Church, DeFuniak Springs, Fla.
How do ordination vows would adhere to writer’s position?
Posted Friday, December 9, 2011
I would like to ask some questions regarding the most recent letter dated 12/6/2011 by Jim Moore. He has identified himself as a ruling elder at Worthington Presbyterian Church in Worthington, Pa. I assume therefore that he was asked the prescribed questions at the time he was ordained, among which are:
- “Do you accept the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be, by the Holy Spirit, the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ in the Church universal, and God’s Word to you?
- “Do you sincerely receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions of our church as authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do, and will you be instructed and led by those confessions as you lead the people of God?”
Assuming he answered in the affirmative, I simply wonder how these vows would adhere to his position that many of the Biblical authors wrote “immoral” laws? How does one affirm that the Scriptures are by the Holy Spirit and yet believe that they include laws and prescriptions that are immoral? Did the Holy Spirit (the third person of the Trinity) give us immoral laws? Or maybe the texts are utterly corrupted and unreliable … and if so how could one honestly affirm them to be by the Holy Spirit, and vow to be instructed by them? Or maybe he believes only some of the texts are by the Holy Spirit? And if so, did he indicate at the time of his vows, which texts he believed to be “by the Holy Spirit” and which ones he believed were not?
His response to Golden prompts other questions as well. In his letter he seems to indict certain Biblical texts as “immoral” based upon his view of an absolute equality of the sexes as a moral absolute. Anything in the Biblical texts that hint of male hierarchy must therefore be “immoral” from his point of view. I just wonder from whence he derived this overarching ethical absolute? Was it from the Holy Scriptures, which he affirmed in his vows to be by the Holy Spirit … and God’s Word to him? Was it from the essential tenets of the Reformed faith, which he affirmed are to be found in the Scriptures and reflected in the confessions, which he affirmed in his vows are to be his instructors? Maybe he discovered some superior authority, from which he deduced the moral absolute of the equality of the sexes in all things? If so, would he like to amend or renounce his vows, indicating what he believes to be a higher authority to that of the Scriptures? Maybe his higher authority is the modern secular culture? Maybe it is the Tubingen school of higher criticism (which are reflected in his scriptural critique)? I wonder if Moore would like to make a vow to be instructed by these seemingly (to him) greater authorities?
Or maybe, just maybe, he never took those vows very seriously in the first place? Maybe they were just a means to an end, and he found linguistic loopholes by which to affirm that which he was really denying?
Adel Thalos, teaching elder Valleybrook EPC, Hixson, Tenn.
Writer substitutes his personal authority for the authority of God’s Holy Word
Posted Friday, December 9, 2011
No Jim Moore, [letter to the editor posted 12/6/2011] you may not carry the day when you begin your argument from an insufficient basis. You and Loren are arguing apples and oranges. He bases his position on the firm rock that Scripture is inerrant. You start from the (in my opinion) fatally flawed and “Progressive” view of human authorship.
You said: ” He should be commended for going back to the Bible to examine my claims and for summarizing so well the traditional, orthodox Christian (emphasis mine) understanding of sex and marriage. The Biblical and theological barriers to a view like mine are very high, and anyone who thinks otherwise is only kidding himself.”
I would posit that more than simply kidding yourself, you are substituting your personal authority for the sovereignty of God and the authority of his Holy Word. In so doing, the humanist perspective you and your ilk espouse is at the root of much of the conflict, failure and abandonment of Reformed doctrine that is killing the Presbyterian Church (USA).
What does Scripture say about its own authority?
Rev. Jim Yearsley Tampa, Fla.
Another fight ahead
Posted Friday, December 9, 2011
After the dust settles, the property disputes are somehow ameliorated, and the PCUSA or what’s left of it, continues to feed on secularism, and we’ve all joined PCA or ERPC, then there will be another hurdle and that is the exclusion of women from being ruling elders in either of the churches mentioned above. Another fight ahead, do not be blind to this obstacle!
Charlotte B. Thomas St. Clairsville, Ohio