A bureaucratic viewpoint about the purpose of the church
Posted Friday, May 29, 2009
In reading what Union Presbyterian Seminary President Bryan K. Blount said about Presbyterians in the recent Layman article about the seminary’s name change, I found one of the best examples to date of an anthropocentric, post-modern, bureaucratic viewpoint about the purpose of the church.
Blount spoke of the need for a Presbyterian cause. “Perhaps that is what we Presbyterians have been lacking so much for so long,” he said. “We have issues, Lord knows, we have issues. But we have no cause.” Fair enough. Always bickering and never accomplishing anything would be rather lame.
But consider the cause Blount proposes: “Perhaps the cause is us, telling the world about us, not giving up on us.”
Oh, I certainly hope we have something far better to do than make the Presbyterian cause being Presbyterians, telling the world about Presbyterians, not giving up on the Presbyterian denomination! What a weak cause and dismal prospect!
I’m not a learned seminary president, but it seems to me that the cause we Presbyterians do have is to glorify God, and enjoy him forever. It seems to me that our cause is to go and make disciples of all peoples, baptizing them and teaching them to obey all that Jesus has commanded. Our cause is to love our neighbor as ourselves and to be servants to all.
These are causes I can sink my teeth into. But being Presbycentric rather than Christocentric is a tragic substitute, not the redeeming cause. James D. Berkley Bellevue, Wash.
New name is weak attempt to focus energies on the wrong area
Posted Friday, May 29, 2009
“Perhaps that is what we Presbyterians have been lacking so much for so long,” he said. “We have issues, Lord knows, we have issues. But we have no cause. Perhaps the cause is us, telling the world about us, not giving up on us.”
Mr. Blount is showing what is wrong here in that statement: The focus of his statement is “us.” If the PCUSA and its associated organizations focused on God there would be a revival we could not comprehend. I’m afraid the new name is a weak human attempt to focus energies once again on the wrong area. Evan Dowdy Brighton, Colo.
Is it too offensive to say that the ‘cause’ is Christ Jesus?
Posted Friday, May 29, 2009
Your report of “external” changes to the identity of Union Seminary, are further evidence of an unfolding tragedy in a former great institution.
When the leadership notes that “We have no cause. Perhaps the cause is us, telling the world about us, not giving up on us,” there is evidence of spiritual decay.
Is it too offensive to say that the “cause” is Christ Jesus?
Your article went on to note the school’s leadership reservation about its new acronym. “The concern has been with the acronym it creates,” he said of UPS, which is most commonly identified with United Parcel Service.
Most of us will have no conflict between the two “UPSs.” We realize that the real one “Delivers.” The other, managed by ecclesiastical eunuchs will continue its “bearish” market trajectory. Jerry Voss Fresno, Calif.
‘Next time around’ amendment will be approved
Posted Friday, May 29, 2009
Although the current total is 78, Yes to 94 No, I totaled the individual votes to get a sense of how close the overall vote was. The results are 10,422 Yes, to 10,794 No.
With the number of conservative members and congregations leaving our denomination, I sadly expect the “next time around” such an amendment will be approved. Joe Ryan
Race and sexual preference are not identical issues
Posted Friday, May 29, 2009
Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon’s recent article provides me with an opportunity to express my own feeling about the race and gender analogy.
Are we not all brothers and sisters in Christ, united through the common bond of faith and love? We are each created in the image of God, and as such, we, as Christians, cannot support discrimination or prejudice against any person. Unfortunately, the rich tapestry of our shared American history is not spotless; few national issues come so quickly to mind as the painful lesson of racial discrimination. Certainly, promising strides have been made in repairing race relations since the 60s, and it may be that by drawing comparisons between the hardships endured by racial minorities and by homosexuals, we are also invoking the hope for a similarly positive outcome for gay rights.
However, we must exercise caution and avoid over-extending the simile. Race and sexual preference are not identical issues, nor should they be lumped together in the “other” category. To do so diminishes the uniqueness of both groups who seek to strike down the labels of “majority” and “minority,” of “us,” and “them.”
I often wonder if anyone is aware of the existential reality that by putting the two totally different matters together the gay rights advocates insulted and thus have caused additional pains to those who experienced enough suffering from the hands of racists in the church. Theologians, at least some who should have known better, are not free from this insensitivity. If justice for the practicing homosexuals is a big issue to be concerned with, racism in the church is a bigger issue for the theologians to speak against. No wonder Sunday mornings are still the most segregated hour of the week in America. Inkyu Park, pastor University Presbyterian Church, Akron, Ohio
No new laws needed
Posted Friday, May 29, 2009
More new U.S. laws to protect sexual orientation are not needed. Almighty God put His laws in a book called “The Bible” and the sexual orientation people have ignored that request. Wm. Reeves Birmingham, Ala.
More to the story than
has been shared in Layman articles
Posted Thursday, May 21, 2009
Those following the series of articles regarding the happenings in Denison, Iowa need to know there is a whole lot more to the story than has been shared in these articles.
I first want to mention that Prospect Hill Presbytery is one of the most conservative presbyteries in the PCUSA. This is evidenced in the vote on 08-B (12 yes, 63 no). Most members of COM and the Denison administrative commission would also be call themselves conservatives. Among the elders are farmers, small business people and some professionals. They are good people who know right from wrong. Prior to this series of articles many people in the presbytery would have been sympathetic to The Layman’s overall thrust. Now, because of its apparent support for Rihner, some now feel The Layman has turned its back on its own constituency. Theologically, Rihner should have fit right in with the composition of Prospect Hill Presbytery.
The issues and struggles in the Denison church have little to do with theology and more to do with power and control. These issues and struggles were tearing the congregation apart and were not being effectively and appropriately addressed by its leadership. Some of those issues, which became the reasons for dissolution, were addressed at the properly called special presbytery meeting by members of the congregation. All members of the congregation were given the privilege of the floor and each reason was addressed in some manner. The comments from both sides pretty much convinced the members of the presbytery of the needed action. On Sunday, April 26, the congregation voted 58-18 to concur in the dissolution, but moved to postpone any action on a severance package, based on the discovery of some financial irregularities.
The good news is: worship attendance at the United Presbyterian Church in Denison has increased since Rihner’s departure, contributions have also increased, and the church is getting back to its mission of serving our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Yes, sadly, some members have departed, but the church remains strong and vibrant.
Now, I have a question for all the readership here: How many ministers do you know who are signatories on all church accounts and are even known to sign their own paychecks? PCUSA ministers, by the way, are not members of or trustees in local congregations. John Pehrson, stated clerk The Presbytery of Prospect Hill
Give up armchair quarterbacking;
try being in the line of fire
Posted Thursday, May 21, 2009
I find it bewildering that Mr. Berkley would actually read my letter of May 1 as some sort of suggestion that I advocate sending liberal-leaning accompaniers to protect left-leaning Christians from right-wing persecution and evangelical accompaniers to protect nonpolitical Christians against the activities of the left wing terrorists. An honest reading of my letter would reveal that I merely suggested that he consider sending evangelicals, like himself, on such a mission (although my supposed bifurcation between “left-leaning Christians” and “nonpolitical Christians” is pure dishonest fabrication on his part) in order to help him discover for himself why such an accompaniment mission would be foolhardy.
Mr. Berkley seems to think that I simply ignore the power of persuasion that a “war of rhetoric” could theoretically have. The fact is I don’t ignore that at all, I simply recognize that words can’t persuade those who either can’t or won’t hear them. There is no reason that I know of to believe that the FARC is currently interested in winning an international, or at the very least a North American popularity contest, instead, at this point, they seem more myopically interested in survival. What reason do they have to listen to our rhetoric? Would our rhetoric motivate the current Colombian regime to take stronger action against the FARC? Probably not, they already seem pretty committed to the elimination of the FARC.
Rather than criticize Rick Ufford-Chase for not having set up a program that protects each and every Christian in Colombia, maybe Mr. Berkley could place more emphasis on praising God for the many lives that have been saved by the current program. If he then feels so moved, he might try suggesting some credible additional approaches that might be taken to save more lives. Who knows, maybe Mr. Berkley might one day give up armchair quarterback criticism and find himself risking his own life in Colombia, undertaking a new mission of salvation not unlike the intrepid accompaniment pioneer Rick Ufford-Chase of several years ago. Arthur Woodling Big Cove, Ala.
Surprised by per-capita figure
Posted Thursday, May 21, 2009
I wasn’t surprised by any of the numbers in your article on the comparison of the statistics from the PCA and the PCUSA except the last one.
What I was surprised by in your report was the information in the last paragraph, “The total bill of General Assembly and presbytery funding in 2007 was $106.37 per capita, but that includes paying for more than double the number of foreign missionaries sponsored by the PCA (more than 600) versus those sponsored by the PCUSA (300).”
Is the “$106.37” a per capita charged to each church? Does this mean they use a unified mission model in supporting their missionaries? I thought most of their missionaries were supported through a different model of funding, one that has more local support for each mission worker like we used to do back in the day when we had a growing mission program. Matt Ferguson
Statistics may be distorted
Posted Thursday, May 21, 2009
Raw statistics don’t tell the whole story. They may even distort it. You reported that the average worship attendance for the PCA in 2007 was 69.62 percent, while for the PCUSA in the same year it was only 51.3 percent. Also, you said that per-capita giving for the PCA stood at $2,517, while for the PCUSA it was only $1,096.60. I find it hard to believe that the members of the PCUSA are so less generous than PCA members. I suspect the figures showing less attendance and less per-capita giving for the PCUSA reflected inflated membership figures and that the reported decline of 11.4 percent from 2003 to 2007 would have been much greater if the rolls were kept more accurately. It’s hard to attend or to give anything if you’ve been dead for several years.
You gave no figures for my denomination, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC), but the growth there has been no less encouraging than that of the PCA (you reported that the PCA grew 5.9 percent from 2003 to 2007). When the EPC was founded in 1981, it started with 12 congregations. When I graduated from seminary in 1990, it had about 125. Today it has about 225, according to the EPC Web site. This growth has come in spite of the fact that the EPC makes no claim to local church property and it has dismissed a number of congregations for one reason or another.
In another article appearing in The Layman Online the same day, there was a report that while overall church membership in the United States was declining, it was because the mainline Protestants were in freefall, but the evangelicals were still growing. I suspect that there is another group contributing to the overall decline: the fundamentalist churches, the legalistic ones that emphasize what I call the “Holy Don’ts:” smoking, drinking, card playing, dancing, movies, etc.
And so the American church-going public appear to be rejecting both the extreme right and left, and are gravitating toward the center, the evangelicals. I view this as a positive trend. Larry Brown African Bible College
To renounce my homosexuality
is no different than renouncing Christ
Posted Thursday, May 21, 2009
I found the latest article you posted by Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon quite amazing and wish to offer my own perspective as a homosexual Christian.
Dr. Gagnon notes about sexual orientation being a protected category in the area of hate crimes: “The problem is that the analogy to race and gender doesn’t work well.”
Well actually he is correct on that point. But then he makes another point that goes beyond reason stating: “I contend that a better analogy (i.e., with more points of substantive correspondence) can be made between homosexuality and transsexuality on the one hand and polysexuality (an orientation toward multiple sexual partners) and incest (here I am thinking of an adult-committed sort) on the other hand.”
And he further notes: “As regards a logical connection to incest, incestuous behavior and homosexual behavior alike violate a requisite principle of embodied otherness within embodied sameness, even when such sexual behaviors are conducted consensually between committed adults. Incest is sex between persons who are too much structurally or formally alike as regards kinship.”
Well, to use his logic, I have to conclude that any two persons who are very alike and are in a loving relationship regardless of gender are committing incest. In other words, if a male and female see eye-to-eye on most everything and happen to be both white, Methodists and conservatives, then they are in an incestuous relationship using Dr. Gagnon’s logic. They are already like kin-folk before getting married and so commit incest.
I did take time to read the words of H. R. 1913 that Dr. Gagnon takes issue with. It not only protects sexual orientation but also religion. I found it interesting that Dr. Gagnon doesn’t even make note of the inclusion of religion as a category. But if he did, I think that would blow holes through his arguments.
For religion is something we can change unlike the color of our skin on the surface. However many of us know that religion for us involves a relationship with a higher being that occurs over time. In the process we acquire certain beliefs as to what is real to us in our relationship with God. Another human may demand we change our theology or religion because he/she feels that our faith may actually harm us. But because it is so real to us it is impossible. That is why I think the United States has protected religion for so long, even though some will argue it is a choice.
In my journey as a homosexual, I find many similarities with religion. Sexual orientation, like faith, isn’t something so obvious on the outside like physical appearance. But in my own heart and soul I know the reality of my sexual orientation just as I do as in knowing Christ as my Savior. To tell me that I must renounce my own sexual orientation as a homosexual is no different than telling me I must renounce Christ.
The fact is that the United States protects many faiths including some that may seem unwise and harmful from our own points of view. If religion is worth protecting by U.S. law, why not sexual orientation? Earl C. Apel, deacon Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church, Cincinnati, Ohio
How can one become a ‘member’
of a church so ashamed of the Gospel?
Posted Thursday, May 21, 2009
Church is not supposed to fit like a glove. Its first job is to lead people to know and have a relationship with our Savior. And then it should be like soft sand paper in that it refines us to be more like our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
If you never feel challenged, I say you aren’t in a church that preaches the Gospel and so run as quick as you can.
If you do not stand against what the Bible teaches is to be avoided, then you may as well just call yourself the church of what feels good. It certainly is not the house of the Lord. God loves the sinner but hates the sin, and let me never forget He died for my sins. The least I can do is my best to abstain from them. I may fail but I should try. I should never tire of confessing and being forgiven, that is the beauty of the “relationship.” He loves us. He forgives us.
Being an ordained pastor while involved in a sexual relationship outside of the marriage bed is ridiculous. When the Lord returns and He will – will He know you? Do you know Him? In the meantime how can one become a “member” of a church so ashamed of the Gospel?
Very sad. Irene Gargiulo
There is some merit on
both sides of the PCUSA debate
Posted Thursday, May 21, 2009
I have been a Presbyterian from birth, and it grieves me to see a church torn apart from within. I feel there is some merit on both sides. If all of us were a little more humble and loving it would go a long way to restoring the church and its mission. The constant bickering serves no purpose, and I wish more time, energy and resources would be spent on real issues like people starving in Africa, people being martyred in Asia and worldwide poverty and disease. We all should grow up! William Archabald
‘Powerless presbytery’ needs to repent
Posted Tuesday, May 5, 2009
You’ve got to love Parker Williamson’s writing gifts. I smiled when I read: “Presbytery leaders are fulminating over what has happened as a result of their intervention in this small Iowa community, but they appear powerless to do much else.”
I think some fulminating, not to mention some old fashioned repentance in sackcloth and ashes, is right on the money. And Parker is correct in his description of this wicked presbytery as “powerless.” God confounds the wicked when it delights Him to do so.
I hope more churches staying true to the Scriptures and confessions of faith will follow the lead of this church and head off the evil before the evil comes to them. Cindy Coleman Morganton, N.C.
Emotions have replaced facts in fidelity/chastity issue
Posted Tuesday, May 5, 2009
I am deeply disappointed in the PCUSA and in you. Someone has observed that one of the first casualties in any war is the truth. Both sides of the ordination issue are equally guilty of forsaking the truth in favor of pursuing an agenda. Regardless of how favorably I might regard one agenda over the other, the fact is that we are not dealing with facts, but with emotions.
If anyone would take the time to read G-6.0106b with a bit of care, it is readily apparent that the PCUSA does NOT bar ordination of homosexual persons, whether male or female. What it bars is ANY expression of human sexual activity, outside the bounds of the covenant of marriage between one man and one woman. Unmarried human beings, whether they identify themselves as heterosexual or homosexual, are treated as potentially ordainable by G-6.0106b.
The argument, then, is NOT whether the PCUSA will authorize the ordination of homosexual persons — we already do authorize it, with the clear understanding that the only setting that is appropriate for sexual relations is within the context of heterosexual marriage. The standard maintains that unmarried and sexually-active heterosexual persons are regarded as unqualified for ordination, in complete equality with unmarried and sexually active homosexual persons.
The real argument is whether sexual activity outside of marriage is Biblically permissible. The real argument is whether marriage is Biblically understood as a strictly heterosexual relationship. The real argument, ultimately, is whether we as a denomination trust God enough to give us the capacity to love sinners while hating sin, to hold law and grace together, and to follow where the Word of God leads, rather than looking there for validation of our own prejudices.
Proponents for and against retaining G-6.0106b appear to have completely lost sight of these facts, in favor of polarized, over-simplified stances that do not reflect reality.
I realize that this insignificant little email will make no difference to anyone anywhere, but I challenge you collectively to consider how much more constructive it would be for you and for the denomination if we were to focus accurately on what the actual issue is, rather than succumbing to knee-jerk, experiential emotionalism that dominates so much of our culture these days.
It is very possible that as a denomination, we will fail. It might even be part of God’s plan to secure His own glory that we should do so. Be that as it may, let our failure not be due to our inability to see and speak the truth with as much accuracy as possible. Jonathan Van Deventer Johns Island Presbyterian Church