A response regarding Westbrook and Purves
Posted Wednesday, October 31, 2007
There is little doubt in my mind that the quote attributed by Dr. Purves to John Calvin has been taken out of context. Either that, or Dr. Purves was himself misquoted.
As a student at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary during Dr. Purves’ tenure, I am well acquainted with his teaching and his Reformed perspectives. It is difficult for me to believe that he intended to cast the Presbyterian Church (USA) as the Church of Christ in its entirety.
I don’t know what the context of Andrew’s quote from Calvin was, but I can say it reeks of irony. Calvin separated from the church of his day and I suspect he would find the PCUSA in its current state of theological syncretism appalling.
Rev. Jim Yearsley Tampa, Fla.
Let’s see who gets arrested first
Posted Wednesday, October 31, 2007
I read the story about the asinine ruling by the Veterans’ Administration regarding the flag-folding ceremony at funerals with deep interest, not only as a veteran, but also as a member of the American Legion and as a pastor who is called upon to officiate at the funerals of my members who also are fellow veterans and believers.
I was amused at the following quote by Charlie Waters, parliamentarian for the California legion, who states he will advise [honor guard] volunteers to ignore the instructions: “There are 26 million veterans in this country, and they’re not going to take us all to prison.”
I could not help thinking: “There are 14 million illegal aliens in this country, and we keep getting told we can’t arrest them all. But between the issue of this flag ceremony and the illegals, let’s see who gets arrested first.”
Rev. Bill Pawson Westminster Community Church , Canton, Ohio
Thank you for the publicity
Posted Wednesday, October 31, 2007
I must thank the editors for the publicity. In the last couple of weeks, I counted 11 letters about my ministry. Many contained links to my blog, Shuck and Jive. Thanks!
I enjoyed the creative titles, as well such as “Oh Shucks” and “Time to Chuck Shuck!” Steve Jones even included the e-mail address of my executive presbyter so that tattlers wouldn’t have to do the hard work of searching for it. When you e-mail my exec, give him my best. The poor guy doesn’t have enough to do and I am sure he enjoys the correspondence.
In the meantime, I will continue to the ministry to which God has called me to do. I am honored to be a member in good standing in Holston Presbytery (just ask my committee on ministry) and proud of the direction our denomination is taking.
But enough about me. There certainly are more substantial things with which to be concerned. These things include the Iraq war, the drums beating for war with Iran, global warming, our addiction to non-renewable resources like oil, the lack of health care for the poorest among us, hunger in our own country and around the world, and many other issues to which Jesus would have something to say, I think.
I am pleased to announce that Holston Presbytery has made a commitment to peacemaking. We are only the third presbytery to do so. Hopefully, other presbyteries and congregations will also make this commitment.
John Shuck Elizabethton, Tenn.
Interesting can of worms opened’ by national appeal for funds in property cases
Posted Wednesday, October 31, 2007
The Presbytery of Western North Carolina has opened an interesting can of worms with its national appeal for funding for its persecution of Christian churches within its geographical boundaries. Converted Christians tend to be much more sacrificial and generous than liberals.
For several months now, I have been toying with floating the suggestion that those Christian churches still within the Presbyterian Church (USA) form a boycott of protest against the liberal takeover by withholding their per capita and sending it to a PCUSA-persecuted church instead. This action would allow the faithful to continue to fund ministries honoring Christ, rather than shaming Him, and also demonstrate that orthodox Christians are united by something other than coercion and oppression.
It also would mean that the thuggish behavior of the liberal hierarchy would be producing the exact opposite effect than that desired in that the PCUSA would be in a funding loop, so that the plunder that the powers-that-be wish to steal effectively will be eluding them.
A win-win for everybody on the Lord’s side, really.
Rev. Russ Westbrook teaching elder, Riverside Presbyterian Church PCA
A response to letter by Earl Apel
Posted Wednesday, October 31, 2007
In his latest missive [Letters, October 30, 2007], Earl Apel stated that liberal Protestants “believe that the living God who is the reality in our lives is infallible,” and that “to place products of humans (the Bible, the pope or liturgies) on a higher pedestal than the living God is foolish.”
How wonderful it is that Mr. Apel has cleared this up for us. Now, we would be so ingratiated to Mr. Apel if he would clarify just how the infallible living God infallibly communicates Himself to us if not through an infallible Bible.
II Peter 1:21 tells us that “no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit,” and II Timothy 3:16 tells us that “All Scripture is God-breathed.” Thus, it is evident that the Bible was not merely “written by fallible humans,” but is the product of the infallible living God, written by the pen of man.
Now, if the living God is infallible and does not want for knowledge, wisdom, veracity or power, then it necessarily follows that He is perfectly capable of infallibly transmitting that message to fallen man by the pen of the prophets and apostles, fallible though they may be, without doing violence to their will. Thus, it follows that since God does not want for knowledge, wisdom or veracity, then neither does His Word, the Bible.
My wife is a math teacher in a public high school and is responsible for setting classroom rules to govern the behavior of her pupils. Some of her rules include things such as “remain in your seat” or “do not talk to your neighbor.” High school students, being what they are, are prone to disobey these rules and, when they continue to disobey her after she has repeated them, she sometimes says, “I did not stutter” and repeats the instruction to the unruly students to behave.
The infallible living God, in giving us His holy, inspired, inerrant, authoritative Word, did not stutter. The Bible is not mistaken in its depiction of the character of the one true God, nor is it unclear in its instruction to us of the moral law to which we are held accountable. Those who look for ways to treat the Bible as less than inerrant are looking for ways to justify those sins of which they do not want to repent, refusing to believe that God will hold them accountable for their disobedience to His law and for their impenitence on Judgment Day.
Let us be very clear: We are required to obey the infallible, living God, and that includes His infallible Word, the Bible, which is “living and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12). For as Jesus said, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15). If we love God, we will keep His commandments and not be imitators of the Serpent, who sought to sow mistrust in the Word of God when he asked, “Did God say …?” (Genesis 3:1) and who lied when he said, “You will not surely die” (Genesis 3:4).
So then, we do not “place … the Bible … on a higher pedestal than the living God” when we state that it is infallible, as Mr. Apel alleges, for the Bible is the infallible, living Word spoken by the infallible, living God, and it is to its commandments and teachings that we will be held to account when we stand before the absolute sovereign Lord Jesus Christ on Judgment Day.
But it is exceedingly foolish to say that the Bible is not infallible for, by saying such things to excuse our sin, we place impediments in the path of the Lord’s children, causing them to stumble into sin and, as the Lord Jesus said, “whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, 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” (Matthew 18:6).
Loren Golden Overland Park, Kan.
Preaching light and truth will not cause division in the church of God’
Posted Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Christ came not to bring peace, but a sword. Preaching light and truth (sola scriptura) will not cause division in the church of God; however, the rejection of light and truth will always cause some to break away.
Fear not the schism; rather, fear faltering in preaching the truth. Sola scriptura, if followed, will lead you to examine all of your beliefs. Search the Scriptures daily to prove that which is true, and hold to that.
Like the Bereans, who are called “faithful” (and who my e-mail address is patterned after), the goal of every Christian is to follow the Scriptures for they testify of Christ. If we are faithful and examine all our beliefs, reform will occur and splits will happen, but that was predicted. The most important thing about a schism is being on the right side. I think Lincoln was credited with answering the question of whether the Lord was on his side by replying, “The question is not whether the Lord is on my side, but rather whether I am on His.”
You have made a bold attempt with your three (if I counted right) confessions. There is a lot more work to be done. John Calvin was not perfect in his beliefs. He had not overcome much of the false teachings of the Catholic Church, which came straight from paganism. The work for all faithful Christians is indeed sola scriptura, but with all of our beliefs. Then, and only then, will we be on the Lord’s side.
Dean Bowen
A response to Larry Brown
Posted Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Larry Brown notes in his letter [Letters, October 22, 2007]: “This is precisely the problem with liberal Protestantism – it has no theme. Evangelicalism has an infallible Bible. Catholicism has an infallible pope. Eastern Orthodoxy has an infallible liturgy. With liberal Protestantism, however, nothing is infallible. This is why the world by and large is rejecting liberal Protestantism. When people go looking for a faith, they don’t go looking for John Shuck; they look for certainty, they look for ‘Thus saith the Lord!'”
Being a liberal Protestant, I would like to set the record straight. It is incorrect to state that I or others, as liberal Protestants, believe that nothing is infallible. In fact, we believe that the living God who is the reality in our lives is infallible. That was the whole point of what Jesus taught in making God real to all humanity.
The Bible was written by fallible humans. The pope is fallible per the Protestant churches. Any liturgy has been written by humans who are also fallible. So, to place products of humans (the Bible, the pope or liturgies) on a higher pedestal than the living God is foolish.
The reality, I think, is that most Christians of various denominations and camps really do believe in the infallibility of the living God. Unfortunately, it becomes too easy to claim that certain Christians who don’t believe the way we do are missing a “theme” and it is much more comfortable to rely on the works of humanity that are there in black in white as our guide rather than the living God who we cannot see or feel in a physical sense.
But isn’t faith our believing beyond our human existence, rather than the physical? Of course it is. And, in fact, the reality is that is what most Christians, if not all, believe. We have more in common than many like to believe and admit.
Earl C. Apel member, Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church , Cincinnati, Ohio
An observation about the gay Dumbledore
Posted Tuesday, October 30, 2007
During the past week, I have observed with some amusement the mainstream media as they fawn over author J.K. Rowling. The big news, of course, is her revelation that a major character in her wildly popular Harry Potter series, the Gandalf-like wizard Dumbledore, is a homosexual. Gay activists have cheered. Family values crusaders have groaned.
And through it all, I have wondered, have these people ever read the books? I have read all seven for the first time over the last six weeks; Ms. Rowling made her announcement as I began the final installment. I believe the celebration and consternation are a bit premature. In fact, J.K. Rowling has created the poster-wizard for evangelical Christians everywhere, a man who does not allow his sexual desires to rule him.
Dumbledore is a celibate gay man. The author has been very clear that the “love of his life” is another wizard named Grindelwald, whom he met at the age of 17. Dumbledore himself describes this time as, “Two months of insanity, of cruel dreams, and the neglect of the only two members of my family left to me.” And then it is over. Their only other meeting is a battle, years later, where Dumbledore defeats Grindelwald, who has been about the ethnic cleansing so popular throughout European history. From his teen years on, Dumbledore apparently chooses to turn his back on sexual expression altogether. In doing so, he follows the path of generations of gay-yet-celibate and faithful Roman Catholic priests and monks, focusing on other, more fulfilling interests and tasks in this life.
Just as the lie of black mental inferiority was widely accepted in the 19th century, a dubious gift of the 20th is the lie of sexual necessity. Our culture seems to believe that, once you have reached puberty, there is perhaps a three- or four-year window after which, if you’re not having sex – I don’t know, your eyes pop out and your head explodes? Likewise, if you are an adult and not having sex, there is something wrong with you.
According to the disciples of Freud and Hefner, sexual activity is not only a right, it is a necessity, like breathing; it completes you, makes you a man or a woman. Earlier generations know this is complete nonsense. Christians believe that only a relationship with God, through Jesus Christ, brings satisfaction. Anything else just becomes a disappointing idol. Many Christians have gone through life celibate. After all, Jesus did.
Gay activists often caricature those who believe that homosexual behavior is morally wrong as hating gay people. This is untrue; how is it unloving to beg someone not to act in a way that you believe will hurt him? Christians have never discouraged male/male companionship. Their objection is simply to any sexual contact outside the bounds of marriage, which is between one man and one woman. It may seem restrictive to some, but most people seem to crave this protected, safe place that exists in all human cultures
Christians hold this standard because they believe God has revealed it in the Bible. They believe that there is a moral law as real as the laws of physics, and to break either is to invite disaster. And the moral law is so ingrained that J.K. Rowling, who may or may not be a believer, nonetheless has created a story of good versus evil, filled with flawed but lifelike characters, as if she were taking pages from the tales of David, Moses and Jesus.
One could argue, and perhaps Ms. Rowling will now insist, that Dumbledore continues to have an active sex life behind the scenes of the Harry Potter books. After all, these are children’s books and the closest we get to sex in them is Ron Weasley “snogging” a girl named Lavender Brown! But, looking at what actually is written, gay activists really have little to celebrate. Dumbledore is a loner. He never confides completely in anyone. He has no constant male or female companion, or one that even is occasionally there. The most rabid homophobe could not ask for a character more completely in the closet.
And the most generous of traditional, orthodox Christians can find much to admire and commend about a celibate gay man, turning his back on adolescent sexual desire and dedicating his life to education and the protection of those entrusted to his care. As Dumbledore himself says at the conclusion of the second book of the series, “It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.” And far more than our orientations.
Powell Sykes pastor , Westminster Presbyterian Church , Burlington, N.C.
Congratulations to Beaver-Butler Presbytery
Posted Monday, October 29, 2007
I highly commend the Beaver-Butler Presbytery for staying true to the spirit and legacy of the Reformed faith.
They may be taking a big risk by refusing to participate in shackling people’s conscience with the property laws – e.g., G-8.0201 – but a right one. No church should be held hostage by the threat of taking away their properties, which they most likely have acquired through years, sometimes generations, of tearful prayers, sacrificial donations and selfless labor of love.
I believe the Presbyterian Church (USA) would do well to adopt the Beaver-Butler Presbytery’s guidelines on property issues for the sake of maintaining a “ministerial” vis-à-vis “adversarial” posture toward local churches that the denomination is called to serve.
To the presbytery: If I may make one suggestion, however, to what otherwise seems to be an impeccable document, perhaps you should clarify what you mean by the phrase, “genuinely desires to depart” in the section I.D., first bullet of your guidelines. It’ll save a lot of dispute later on when you have a sizeable minority within the congregation that oppose departure or if a loose-cannon pastor politics to manipulate the departure or, going the other extreme, sabotage the departure, etc. The question that remains to be answered is what constitutes “genuine desires?”
Notwithstanding a minor glitch, the document is way ahead of the pack. Thank you for your collective display of ‘goodness.’ It is so refreshing.
Rev. Peter B. Min Torrance, Calif.
A response to the ‘Beware of Dogma’ billboard
Posted Monday, October 29, 2007
Can there be anything more humorously ironic than a group of militant atheist activists putting up a billboard warning people to “beware of dogma?”
As if the radical atheist community isn’t the least bit “dogmatic” in their anti-religious pontificating and politicizing. Apparently, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, et al. didn’t get that memo.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation may have given up its belief in God, but apparently its members haven’t given up their ability to be in complete denial about their own rigid and doctrinaire dismissal of all things religious.
Dr. Rick Boyer Trinity United Presbyterian Church, Zanesville, Ohio
Congratulations to First Presbyterian Church in Hendersonville
Posted Monday, October 29, 2007
Congratulations, thank you and God’s blessings to the session of First Presbyterian Church in Hendersonville, N.C. Your letter to the Presbytery of Western North Carolina of Oct 22 outlined exactly the leadership failures of the Presbyterian Church (USA) over the last 40 years.
This letter can be summarized by quoting a sentence on page 2: “We need to be reformed by the Word of God, rather than by reforming the Word to suit our own desires.”
Jack Vanderbleek elder, Northeast Presbyterian Church, St. Petersburg, Fla.
Oh, shucks
Posted Monday, October 29, 2007
I have read John Shuck’s blog (which he claims is part of his “outreach and teaching ministry”) off and on for about a year. I’d often wondered if his presbytery (Holston) even knew that he seemed to revel in denying nearly every essential tenet of the Christian faith.
I suppose that, since we in the Presbyterian Church (USA) are officially unable to state what those tenets are, the presbytery could be excused for not knowing whether he denied them or not.
But after his childish defiance [Letters, October 10, 2007] of the one who would be his Savior surfaced in The Layman Online, I decided to ask. I e-mailed Rich Fifield, executive presbyter and stated clerk, and asked if Holston Presbytery intended to re-consider Shuck’s fitness to be a pastor in the PCUSA. I have not heard back.
Rev. Fifield, of course, is well within his rights to ignore an elder from another presbytery, but continued silence does seem to signal assent. I think the ball is Holston Presbytery’s court. Or the synod’s.
Steve Jones elder, Kokomo, Ind.
Louisville can’t even represent Christianity as ‘The One True Church’
Posted Monday, October 29, 2007
I cannot but laugh that a denomination like the Presbyterian Church (USA) – so mired in subjectivity and relativism – would allow itself to be represented by the likes of Andrew Purves as being “The One True Church.” Heck, the leadership in Louisville can’t even find the sanity to represent Christianity as The One True Church.
On that great theological resource known as The Simpsons on TV, Homer once muttered, “If the Universalist Unitarians are the One True Church, I’ll eat my shorts!” Well, just insert the PCUSA in the appropriate slot. Maybe Dr. Purves isn’t getting enough TV viewing time?
Rev. Russ Westbrook teaching elder, Riverside Presbyterian Church PCA
Pray for those who locked us out’
Posted Thursday, October 25, 2007
I have been a member of Londonderry Presbyterian Church for 13 years. I voted not to leave the Presbyterian Church (USA) on theological grounds. All the discussion on this page justifies the changing of the locks so that the Presbytery of Northern New England could not gain entrance to the church. That sounds good in a letter where you assumed the truth would not be told. The truth is that the New Wineskins congregation locked out long-term members – Christian brothers and sisters – from a building that they have worked to build, develop with loving devotion to Jesus Christ.
Why did the New Wineskins lock out their brothers and sisters? The answer is simple. They are not following Jesus. They are driven by greed. They want the $3-million church for themselves. They feel that if they were to share with others, they would lose the court battle. What is sad is that they sold their souls to Satan to try to win the court battle.
Scripture says “by your fruits shall you know them” Their un-Christian act of locking out their brothers and sisters is not an act of loving God and loving your neighbors, but an act that Satan would applaud.
Why do I not want to worship with the New Wineskins congregation? There are a number of reasons. First of all, the church that voted to leave the PCUSA hasn’t a pastor (teaching elder). Without a PCUSA pastor, the elders of the church have embraced the Arminian heresy! Since they follow that heresy, any minister that they now select will probably also follow that heresy. I don’t want to be a member of a congregation that embraces the Arminian heresy, but would I act not to share the facilities as did those that voted to leave the PCUSA? No. God is the ultimate giver of grace. I will not act in a way that would dishonor Jesus by locking out fellow Christians.
For those readers who don’t know what happened, a number, approximately 35, long-term members of the church, along with our pastor, came to worship at 2 p.m. at which time there were no other church activities. We had been given a key so that we could unlock the door and enter the sanctuary to worship. However, the elders, under the advice of their lawyers, changed the locks so that we could not enter the church. But God stopped the rain and provided us with beautiful sunshine as we gathered under the historical elm in front of the church. It was a glorious service as we sang our hymns, prayed to our Lord Jesus Christ and prayed for those who locked us out. We heard an inspirational sermon by our pastor and planned how we could serve Jesus in the Reformed tradition of the historic Presbyterian church.
God has His purposes. In the final analysis, a church built on shifting sand will not last. A church built on a solid foundation will thrive. The continuing congregation of London Presbyterian Church is built on the solid rock of Scripture, the Reformed theology and the teachings of Calvin in the interpretation of Scripture. We are meeting in private homes today, but with Jesus’ help we will thrive.
Bob Robbins
A response regarding the per-capita story
Posted Thursday, October 25, 2007
“Per Capita is going, going, gone!”
I am thrilled to report that my congregation, the largest in the Presbyterian Church (USA), is responsible for almost $50,000 of this money being diverted from the General Assembly coffers!
Mike Montgomery member, Peachtree Presbyterian Church, Atlanta, Ga.