Beyond the realm of central casting
Posted Wednesday, August 27, 2003
Where are you people getting this stuff, “Some gay activists want church to accept multiple partners as ‘holy'”? Central casting could not come up with characters like this. No writer’s imagination is that fertile. I believe I finally have it figured out.
It’s the same old thing when there is bizarre and unexplainable behavior. Louisville has become a mini-Woodstock. There is no other answer for this bizarre behavior and thought. Is there a “Crack Dealers for Christ” chapter?
Douglas Anderson
The fight is out there, save your energy for it’
Posted Wednesday, August 27, 2003
When I played lacrosse at the University of Colorado, our coach would run practices that were extremely difficult in nature. As a result, tempers would often flare up and there would be a fight or two at some point during the season. Coach would always respond with, “The fight is out there, save your energy for it!”
Right now we are at a crisis within the PCUSA. I know my temper begins to fray when I see some of the pronouncements being made by our denominational leaders. However, I would caution my friends who are on the conservative evangelical side of the fence with the same advice that my coach gave me in college. The fight is out there, save your energy for it!
I must say that recent attacks on PFR bring an incredible sense of sadness to my heart. If we begin to attack our allies in the renewal movement, what are we going to be left with? We have made incredible inroads into the power structures of our denominations. Witness the increasing margins of defeat for pro-gay forces at the presbytery level when they try to remove the fidelity and chastity amendment. Certainly we are nowhere close to accomplishing all that we would wish for but even well-respected evangelical periodicals such as Christianity Today are beginning to notice the positive change. (See their article titled “Turning the Mainline Around” in the August issue.)
The cover photo for the Christianity Today August issue pictures a tugboat turning a mighty ship around. What a great illustration for the kind of effort and perseverance it is going to take to get this job done. We are succeeding little by little and we need to take heart and stay the course. Infighting gets us nowhere and only poisons our efforts to renew and revitalize our dying church. Through God’s grace and much prayer this work will get done but only if we remain unified in our efforts as renewal groups. Please allow groups like PFR to tell us where they stand rather than those who have no connection with the group! And most importantly, may we all be on our knees praying for the future of our denomination. To God be the glory!
Rev. Doug Resler Overlook Presbyterian Church, Mobile, Ala.
A contradiction in terms
Posted Tuesday, August 26, 2003
Well, it didn’t take long, now, did it?
With the abominations committed by of the Episcopal Church this summer, the recent Supreme Court rulings in favor of the sodomites and our own continued apostate judicial and theological decisions in the PCUSA, is it any wonder that we now hear people like Debra Kolodny advocating for “holy polyamory.”
C’mon, whom is she kidding? “Healthy, polyamorous relationships?” That’s a contradiction in terms if I ever heard one.
If I were not already convinced of the truth of the doctrine of total depravity, the examples embodied in the death-styles espoused by the likes of Ms. Kolodny and her allies at the WOW 2003 conference would have done the job.
I’m sure that “holy pedophilia” and “holy beastiality” won’t be far behind. Count on it coming soon to a church near you.
When will God’s faithful people say “Enough is enough”?
Rev. Bill Pawson Westminster Church , A Confessing Church , Canton, Ohio
McKechnie should be elected hands down
Posted Tuesday, August 26, 2003
If one were to go on numbers alone, the Rev. David McKechnie should be the next moderator hands down.
The majority of Presbyterian churches of all flavors are usually low in numbers and programs. So much for the frozen chosen.
It is gratifying to see someone who images what Presbyterian leaders used to be in America, because for some time now, so many incompetents have positioned themselves in leadership positions destroying the PCUSA.
The Rev. Dr. Harold Kurtz would have made an excellent current moderator, but God had other plans.
It is with hope and prayer, that the new moderator along with competent elders can steer back the PCUSA to its Biblical roots.
Louis S. Nowasielski
McKechnie may be last, best hope for PCUSA
Posted Tuesday, August 26, 2003
If elected moderator, the Rev. David KcKechnie may well be the PCUSA’s last, best hope for saving the church from disaster. Given the actions of a majority of the General Assembly, however, and not to coin a phrase: “He doesn’t have a prayer,” something both he and PCUSA need badly.
Jack Kime Maryville, Ill.
Is fidelity a group thing?
Posted Tuesday, August 26, 2003
“There can be fidelity in threesomes” …? Why not foursomes, or fivesomes (or you choose your number)? Looks like a free-for-all to me. Oh, yes, but remember, only as long as fidelity is involved!
Rev. Steven L. Seng First Presbyterian Church, Wellsburg, W.Va.
PFR has been straightforward
Posted Tuesday, August 26, 2003
Mr. L. Rus Howard asks for “a clear, straightforward and forthright statement from PFR,” and I can only ask in return, has Mr. Howard been reading PFR’s own pronouncements and publications, or only been reading The Layman’s articles on PFR? From reading PFR’s statements straight (such as their response to Gene Robinson’s elevation – which was forthright enough to anger at least one member of my church), I don’t think there’s any doubt where they stand.
I also don’t see where Mr. Howard conjures “Barbara Wheeler’s feeling that PFR is ready to join hands with the Covenant Network,” as I don’t see that reflected anywhere in her speech at Fuller or in anything else I’ve seen her say. What I see, rather, is a common commitment between Barbara Wheeler and the leaders of PFR to disagree without demonizing, which is a logical part of PFR’s commitment to pray without prejudice. It’s that commitment, I think, which divides what Ms. Wheeler refers to as “the great middle” from those she dubs “superactivists and their sympathizers” (and bear in mind, she means that to apply to many on her side of the fence as well as some on ours), who are unable or unwilling to understand the concept.
There is, it seems to me, a fundamental assumption here which is wildly incorrect: namely, that one can accept without reservation the definitions of PFR offered by other groups. Barbara Wheeler says something that can be taken to indicate that an alliance is forming between PFR and Covenant Network – therefore we can conclude that PFR “has decided to enter into a political partnership with the Covenant Network.”
Other conservative groups decide that PFR must be growing lukewarm because they don’t choose to operate in an obstructionist manner – therefore we can conclude that “PFR is running hot-and-cold on its relationship with the Covenant Network and the Louisville establishment.” Never you mind that PFR itself clearly denies this view of its work – they aren’t to be trusted, only those who offer a view of PFR we find negative are to be trusted. Therefore, “the only conclusion we can draw is that PFR is lukewarm in its beliefs.” Well, no, we can also conclude that others are trying to use PFR to serve their own agendas; and if one considers all the evidence, that seems a more plausible conclusion.
Rev. Rob Harrison Grand Lake, Col.
To change leaders, you have to move up
Posted Tuesday, August 26, 2003
I’ve read several articles in The Layman and the subsequent responses by readers (particularly over the PFR). I have to say that I am perplexed.
I am a conservative, theologically, socially and politically. And across the board, conservatives appear to be distrustful of any centralized power. I say this not as a criticism, but as an observation.
Having made this observation, let me make another. A full 65-75 percent of the people sitting in the pews of the PCUSA reject the ordination of practicing homosexuals. This is, of course, only one issue within the PCUSA that is causing such consternation and division. But, where is the division?
The division is, of course, between the people sitting in the pew and the leadership of the church. Is there little wonder that conservatives in this denomination are distrustful of centralized power?
Nevertheless, I am still perplexed. If conservatives really want to initiate change and reform within the denomination, how do they expect to do so if they do not “centralize” their efforts? A full 65-75 percent of the people sitting in the pew have voiced their heartfelt and spirit-felt convictions. Nevertheless, the issue is being ever more forced upon us. The only way to change the pressure is to remove the lid! And yes, that involves a risk! Ever tried to remove the pressure cap on a hot radiator?
Let’s put it this way. The only way to change the direction of our denomination is by moving up from the grassroots and into positions of leadership. That is the whole reason people join grassroots efforts. If conservatives are satisfied by remaining at the grassroots level, then I hope they are happy with the decisions that will be made completely without their input! And conservatives will remain at the grassroots level if they consume one another in distrust and accusations.
If 65-75 percent of the people in this denomination are convicted by the Spirit that we’re heading in the wrong direction (and not just on issues of ordination), then they need to seek out competent, articulate and compassionate leaders with the same convictions to go and represent them and the truth at session meetings, presbytery meetings and General Assemblies. No other course of action will suffice. No other course of action has made a difference.
The convictions run deep on both sides. But the figures have not changed over 30 years. This means we have reached a stalemate. But the stalemate isn’t between people in the pews, it’s between the people in the pews and the people who are in the leadership positions of this denomination.
The conservatives have the power to break the stalemate and take a stand. This requires much more than a grassroots movement! It requires some centralization of effort. Unless conservatives can trust one another to do the right thing, then all is lost and our energies have been misspent.
Is there anyone out there who hears what I am saying? Is there anyone out there with the guts, determination and conviction to step up and begin the process?
Todd McCoy Richmond, Va.
A good candidate for moderator
Posted Tuesday, August 26, 2003
From The Layman Online article, it looks like the Rev. David McKechnie has everything needed to make a great moderator. Why can’t Bible-believing Presbyterians get behind him and let’s get a moderator who has something else on his mind other than putting gays and lesbians in our pulpits? If we want to save the Presbyterian Church, we better do just that.
Ed McLean Maitland, Fla.
A man cannot become a woman
Posted Monday, August 25, 2003
What a heart-breaking story. I can only imagine the level of pain and confusion that would lead someone to attempt to change their gender. But gender cannot be changed.You can cosmetically tamper with appearance and plumbing, but Mr. Herwig remains a male. No one can ever change their DNA … there’s still a Y chromosome there. The inability for anyone to either add to or subtract from their chromosome configuration prevents anyone from ever truly becoming “transgendered.”
Prayers for healing are an appropriate response to this case, along with repentance by all of us over our all-inclusive sexual brokenness, plus a commitment by each of us to move from where we are to where Christ is calling us to be in the realm of human sexuality.
Ron Scates, senior pastor Highland Park Presbyterian Church, Dallas, Texas
Is this a great church or what?
Posted Monday, August 25, 2003
‘Great middle’ serves only to buy time It is not surprising for one side or another in a conflict to imagine itself closer to a “great middle” or center of a group. Few relish being a part of a radical fringe minority. The PCUSA is actually a shrinking minority of the worldwide Presbyterian and Reformed communities.
I know that Dr. Wheeler and many less committed souls who long for a quiet and unconflicted church that can meet individual spiritual needs and do a little public good without calling much attention to itself do not want arguments framed in terms of universal truths that have long histories. At times, it is more comforting to think more parochially and narrowly. If a group can capture some proposed “middle” that then “compromises” so that one group of extremists can live with it while the other is, by extension, excluded by their own extremism – an “obvious” sin to a people caught up in extolling democracy. Viola! A victory for democracy, justice, and the American Way!
There is a greater consensus for truth in the world than Dr. Wheeler and her friends are often willing to acknowledge. There is a wonderful irony in the condescending attitudes of Western progressives and liberals toward much of Third World Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church. How imperialistic and paternalistic these heroes and heroines of multiculturalism and feminism become when the world at large rejects some of their favorite doctrines!
A quest for unity is laudable. But what is the real reason and purpose of seeking a unity that forces one or all the groups involved to give up on beliefs they feel to be part of eternal truth?
I suspect that the real quest for unity in the PCUSA is all about keeping money flowing for bureaucratic structures and seminary salaries and endowments. A multiple split church (for I do not believe the Presbyterian church is split evenly into just two camps, conservative and liberal, but many shades in-between) would mean little money for governing body activities and seminaries forced to choose affiliations and cannibalize their endowments for short-term survival. Some of the divided churches would succeed and grow (though possibly never to the size the denomination once had). Others would hold on for a while and then shrink away and die or continue to change and merge in with other like-minded groups.
I do not underestimate the difficulties splitting would entail. I also acknowledge that such splitting is technically schism, though, with the pluralism of belief currently extant in the PCUSA, it is questionable whether a split would be actual schism – for actual schism requires all of the splitting parties to be definably Christian. There are positions held by some in the church today that do not conform to the historical, consensual positions which have defined Christianity. Those very groups tend to deny that Christianity can or should be “defined.” Just as our Book of Order can speak of essential tenets of the Reformed faith but absolutely cannot define them.
Genuine unity can only come around a unanimity of belief about just such essentials. Then there can be some compromise around the periphery. Yet it is the very essentials that are most at question and yet seem farthest from the discussion of the PUP task force and most subject to such self-serving attempts to define a “great middle of the church.” Until all of the Presbyterian church is ready to agree that “theology matters,” and get serious about what theology is going to define us – meaning some will have to be included and others excluded – then talk of unity is meaningless.
All mission will have to also be local. It might save us a lot of money. We can sell the Louisville offices to a secular business, lay off all national, synod, and most presbytery employees, and give money and support only to those whom we choose to. We would have the name of unity, but I, for one, refuse to let my presbytery get by with accepting someone ordained in another presbytery without a very exhaustive examination – including personal questions about his or her self-understanding of sexual preference and theology of marriage. There is no “unity” in that scenario, nor is there the survival of the institutions which all sides of the conflict seem to want to preserve.
If there really is a “middle” group in the Presbyterian church, I guess their plea is for a conflicted unity that buys time. Time, some assume, will lead to the conversion of one side or the other. Perhaps. But the status quo is not stable. The church continues to shrink, and a denominational consensus on correcting that is not going to be possible because of our divisions. Do we have time to let time work?
Maybe it would be more God-honoring to let the denomination die while we remain married together in the name of love despite our divisions in the hope that God works a miracle of conversion. God can do it, but history suggests that God is rather cautious in his interruptions of human freedom.
Rev. Scott Mackey Fort Worth, Texas
Thanks for PFR’s response
Posted Monday, August 25, 2003
Thank you, James Berkley, PFR Issues Ministry Director, for the information provided on The Layman site in “PFR responds to Wheeler, others.” (Aug. 22).
You seem to be exemplifying I Corinthians 16:13,14: “Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love.” There is no better foundation for our focus in our ministry for our Lord and Savior!
Greg Leaman Oostburg, Wisc.
PFR needs to make straightforward statement
Posted Monday, August 25, 2003
While Jim Berkley’s letter of August 22 was an interesting counterpoint defense of charges made against PFR by individuals who are confused about where PFR stands on the issues dividing our denomination, it did not clear the air.
Like it or not, many in the denomination, on both sides of the fence, are unclear about PFR’s theological convictions and political aspirations.
Evidence of this confusion is seen in Barbara Wheeler’s feeling that PFR is ready to join hands with the Covenant Network.
Further evidence of the confusion is seen when those in evangelical circles believe that PFR has decided to enter into a political partnership with the Covenant Network and the Louisville establishment.
The evidence seems to indicate that PFR is running hot-and-cold on its relationship with the Covenant Network and the Louisville establishment.
Thus, the only conclusion we can draw is that PFR is lukewarm in its beliefs.
Of course, a clear, straightforward and forthright statement from PFR would clear the air and set the record straight.
L. Rus Howard
Stated Clerk should support Alabama’s chief justice
Posted Monday, August 25, 2003
Since our Stated Clerk is so experienced at writing “friend of the court” briefs, why doesn’t he write one on behalf of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who is about to be removed from office because he insists on displaying the Ten Commandments in his court house?
The clerk’s brief might point out that our founding fathers rejected an established national religion, but that they believed in a universal, rational, moral law built into the universe by its Creator. They believed that the Ten Commandments were the most perfect expression of that law, and that recognizing their universal validity did not establish any particular religion.
He might quote the Apostle Paul, who said that Gentiles who are “without the Torah,” but “who do by nature what the law requires” are blessed by God (and are just as much “without excuse” as Jews who have the written law, because they have the law written on their hearts).
The First Amendment was written in an age when “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” were recognized. New discoveries like the law of gravity were called “laws” precisely because they had a universal application, analogous to that of the moral law recognized by reason.
Justice Moore is fighting for the truth that the universal natural law expressed in the Ten Commandments is the foundation of all laws enacted by human governments. People of all religions, not just Jews and Christians, should be closing ranks behind him.
Mr. Stated Clerk, I look forward to your amicus curiae brief!
Rev. Ernest Williams Stated Supply Pastor, First Presbyterian Church , Donna, Texas
PFR’s official ‘explainer’ has tough job
Posted Monday, August 25, 2003
Thank you, James D. Berkley, for explaining PRF. I can remember when PFR didn’t have to explain itself. If you are the official “explainer,” then you have a tough job. I don’t feel nearly as comfortable as I once did about PFR and exactly where it stands.
Pete Allen Sunnyvale, Texas