A solution for the per-capita dilemma
Posted Thursday, February 27, 2003
I think we have solved the problem of “per capita.”
After being part of seven Presbyterian Church (USA) churches over 40 years, we have decided to participate locally, but not join. Therefore, no per-capita payment required for us.
And, of course, we will not be asked to go to presbytery meetings. How unfortunate!
L.E. Marsh Fallbrook, Calif.
About the professors who have different views of homosexual practice
Posted Thursday, February 27, 2003
From “Professors have different views of homosexual practice, but reach a shared conclusion;” February 25, 2003:
“Dr. Milton J. Coalter, acting president of Louisville Theological Seminary in Kentucky: ‘Hays tries to bring Jesus into this with some references about marriage. That raises questions: Would not Jesus have spoken on homosexuality if it was that important? If the Bible is conditioned for its own time, what does that mean? Is Jesus conditioned by his own time?”‘
Do you suppose Jesus, in both Matthew 11:23-24 and Luke 17:28-30, was saying the sins of Sodom would be tolerated in the “day of judgment?”
I don’t think so. Every Jew in Jesus’ day who heard His eternally true words knew of the sin of Sodom and how harshly the ‘Angel of the Lord’ (perhaps a pre-incarnate manifestation of this same second person of the Trinity – Jesus) had dealt with it.
Do not let anyone tell you Jesus did not address the homosexual issue. Search the Scriptures for yourself.
By the way, don’t we, from the CCM/CPC perspective, have about a dozen equally qualified writers who could provide the Theological Task Force on Peace, Purity and Unity (whether they want it or not) with an alternate conclusion on how the gospels, indeed, the entire, eternally-true Word of God, should help us understand ordination of non-repentant, practicing homosexuals? How about equally non-repentant practicing bank robbers?
Certainly no one, not even our best pastors, are completely pure and holy. But God chooses to bless those who are truly seeking His face in their service to Him. Let us seek those same servants with whom to fellowship and glorify our God – the eternal triune God of the universe!
Greg Leaman Oostburg, Wisc.
Another Confession?
Posted Thursday, February 27, 2003
I want to register my complete agreement with the recent letter sent by elder Jim Lewis, arguing that the church does not need another confession.
Contrary to the impression created by The Layman’s reporting of the recent meeting of the Task Force on the Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church, I would neither support nor defend attempts to write a new addition to The Book of Confessions at this juncture in the life of the PCUSA.
P. Mark Achtemeier Task force member
Another view on the professors
Posted Thursday, February 27, 2003
Reference: Layman Online, “Professors have different views of homosexuals practice, but reach a shared conclusion.”
Comments: I am not a “Professor.” I am an industrial sales engineer. I have lived and worked all over God’s Earth. I am a Christian. I read and believe my Bible. Homosexuality is a sin.
William M. Reeves Birmingham, Ala.
Pray for Westminster, Pawson and the GA PJC
Posted Thursday, February 27, 2003
My response to your article regarding the upcoming trial is to bathe the event with prayer asking for wisdom, discernment and acceptable action.
The events of the last couple of months remind us that we are not our own. We are children of God and we need to be in constant communication with our Father. We need to be more concerned about “How God is using us” than “How can I change the leaders of my church.”
Let us befriend our colleague Bill and pray for him as he follows Christ in leadership. Let us all take our ordination vows as a serious commitment. Let us heed Christ’s call to turn toward God for our direction.
Let us be cautious in what we do, so that we can see the call of the Holy Spirit directing every step and word we take.
G. David Lambertson
About the task force and Machen
Posted Thursday, February 27, 2003
It’s astounding to read that the task force chose Placher for the liberal (progressive) view on homosexuality/ordination, but totally ignored the leading evangelical author on the related Biblical texts. Robert Gagnon, professor at Pittsburgh Seminary, authored The Bible and Homosexual Practice – Texts and Hermaneutics.
I can only surmise that perhaps they wanted an ecumenical perspective by including the paper from the Methodist at Duke.
Still, the task force process is somewhat suspect – it is a glaring blow to evangelicals to shut out the viewpoint of one whose careful study of Scripture has led him to believe the ordination of practicing homosexuals is not Biblical.
I am happy to report, referring to a letter or two on Machen, that Machen’s New Testament Greek for Beginners was the text used for my Intro. Greek course 22 years ago at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary.
So, there are some places that recognize his contributions (yes, I realize it was unfortunately not in the theology department!).
David Bierschwale Ramsey, Minn.
Come out of her!’ Scripture tells us
Posted Thursday, February 27, 2003
Rev. 18:4 – “And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.”
Many think this is an admonition of the Roman church, some that it refers to the Roman system of idol worship.
Could this be a reference to what is happening in the mainstream denominations? Is this a part of the prophesied falling away? It’s clear what has happened within the national leadership of the PCUSA, Ezekiel warns of it with this Scripture:
Eze. 14:3 – “Son of man, these men have set up their idols in their heart, and put the stumbling block of their iniquity before their face: should I be enquired of at all by them?”
How long will we to continue to subjugate ourselves to the unholy decisions of this “brood of vipers?” Will we “come out of her” before it’s too late? Let’s not make the mistake of making our traditions, more important than His message.
Vince Lalomia Omaha, Neb.
About J. Gresham Machen
Posted Wednesday, February 26, 2003
In regard to the letter from Robert O. Wildrick, one of our PCA brothers, one slight clarification should be made. J. Gresham Machen was not removed from Princeton Theological Seminary during its reorganization; rather, he voluntarily left to form Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, along with several other Princeton professors.
While I realize this may seem to be a little trivial, it is important to always keep the facts straight in dealing with these cases. No one has a monopoly on the “truth” except for Jesus Christ, who is “the way, the truth, and the life.”
I would encourage everyone on all sides of these debates to make sure their facts are correct before making wild and outlandish speculations. There is always more than one side to each case.
A.D. Lorenz First Presbyterian Church, Warsaw, Ohio
Another great book to read
Posted Wednesday, February 26, 2003
Robert O. Wildrick didn’t mention it in his letter of 2-24-03, but another book I have read and recommend is Dr. J. Gresham Machen’s Christianity And Liberalism.
Dr. Machen was a prophet and, as is normal, not recognized in his own land (denomination?).
Robert Demarest Cuminale Charlotte, N.C.
Come on, Andy Sale, give us your plan
Posted Wednesday, February 26, 2003
The Layman recently took some hollow knocks from M. Anderson “Andy” Sale, general presbyter, Presbytery of the Peaks, Lynchburg, Va., who chastised The Layman and its leadership for ostensibly not making “positive, specific and constitutionally appropriate suggestions” to solve the issues joined in the PCUSA today.
Sale attacks The Layman for being disruptive via “hysterical and generalized condemnations” which “often generate more heat than light.”
This amounts to just so much posturing and whining and not much substance. The real question ought to be: what actions are Mr. Sale and other general presbyters in this church doing to solve the problems pointed out by The Layman and the laity.
Personally, I am very delighted that The Layman and Layman Online are doing the job of sounding the alarm and disrupting the lethargic and ineffective presbyters and other who have allowed the PCUSA to come into such disarray. I look forward to reading the Layman Online every day.
This denomination is being lifted up by The Layman. It’s those who are sitting on their hands and letting the revisionists redefine sin that are failing.
What will you recommend, Mr. Sale? The sessions, presbyteries and synods of the church are awaiting your ideas and your plan to restore this denomination.
Philip Pettus Elder, Michillinda Presbyterian Church, Pasadena, Calif.
Defining our identity in Christ
Posted Wednesday, February 26, 2003
According to John Adams’ article, “Professors have different views of homosexual practice, but reach a shared conclusion,” Dr. Frances Gench of Union Seminary in Virginia said, “When I read (the Bible), as a Southern feminist, dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, I cannot jump out of my own skin.”
Implicit in this statement is that Dr. Gench defines herself first as a feminist and a Democrat, and secondly as a Christian.
Yet our Lord said, “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be loyal to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” (Mt. 6.24) Likewise, when God spoke from Sinai, He said, “You shall have no other gods before Me.” (Ex. 20.3)
Jesus Christ is the sovereign Lord of all creation, and His call is absolute. Our allegiance must necessarily be first and foremost to Him, and not to any secondary cause. Our identity must therefore be found principally in Him. To claim to be a Christian when our first loyalty is to a political party or to a cause such as feminism or pro-life activism is disingenuous, for a Christian is defined as a person whose first loyalty is to Jesus Christ alone, as He is revealed to us in the Scripture.
Thus, we must first open our hearts and minds to Scripture without any preconceptions, that God the Holy Spirit might use them to mold us and shape us according to the image of Jesus Christ, rather than insisting on defining ourselves according to the ways of this world and reading Scripture in the context of that self-definition.
After all, the Lord said, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.” (Mt. 16.24)
Loren Golden Overland Park, Kan.
Controversy is the symptom, not the problem
Posted Wednesday, February 26, 2003
On the surface, it appears that homosexuality is the issue which is dividing the PCUSA. In actuality, I submit that the controversy over homosexuality, and that over the faith and chastity provisions of the constitution, are the surface symptoms of the actual problem, which is illustrated most clearly in these citations from the article on professorial approaches to homosexual behavior:
“Dr. John Wilkson, pastor of Third Presbyterian Church in Rochester, N.Y.: ‘In the various circles that we travel, we all form canons within canons. Who among us has not pitted the gospel against Paul?'”
And another quote from the same source: “Wilkinson: ‘Placher has written how the academic enterprise has distanced itself from the life of the church.'”
The first citation reveals not a hermeneutical approach, but an unorthodox view of the doctrine of Scripture. Certainly, to fallen readers it sometimes seems that Paul and the gospel are at odds, but if the same spirit of God is not the author of both and in agreement with Himself, then what we have in Scripture is a collection of human ideas.
The doctrine of Scripture – its divine origin, its unanimity and its authority – is the issue here. An investigation of the PCUSA’s history sees a departure from orthodoxy on precisely this point in the Auburn Affirmation of 1923. The current controversy is only the latest bump of an ecclesiastical ship that cut its anchor line 80 years ago. This is not a problem of hermeneutic, but of theology.
The controversies, including the current one, are but the visible manifestation of the real problem. Until and unless the latter is addressed, only more controversy can be expected.
Robinson Mitchell Bartlett, Tenn.
You can’t pick and choose what you will believe in Scripture
Posted Wednesday, February 26, 2003
In response to the article, “Professors have different views of homosexual practice, but reach a shared conclusion,” I find it interesting that their conclusion is “that Scripture clearly condemns homosexual practice,” and then the next sentence begins with “But.” That is precisely the problem.
My Tuesday morning Bible reading included Leviticus 18:22-25, which begins: “Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin … Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the people I am expelling from the Promised Land have defiled themselves. As a result, the entire land has become defiled. That is why I am punishing the people who live there, and the land will soon vomit them out.”
The chapter focuses particularly on sexual behavior the Lord considers “detestable activities” (see verse 27) in opposition to what the Canaan people found culturally acceptable. His words do not require interpretation by professors. He clearly says, “Do not defile yourselves by doing any of them, for I, the Lord am your God.” The question we need to all ask is, “Is He our God?”
Our God clearly condemns homosexual practice as He does any sin. But sexual sin is of particular abhorrence to Him. So, when we ordain a leader who continues to openly practice a sin such as this, we are, in essence, saying to God and to the leader, as well as to those under his/her leadership, that it does not matter, do whatever you want, that we know what is best, not God. We are also denying the power of God to work in our lives to overcome the practice of sin. Our Lord has set higher standards for leadership because our leaders are to train us in God’s way. They are to set examples for us to follow. And, clearly, we are each told to repent from our sins.
In a sermon on Joshua 13-22, it was noted that the reason the Israelites had to conquer Canaan and take the land was to have a place to be a kingdom for God. This was necessary because the people who controlled the land controlled the worship within the land. Our leaders, in essence, control the church and control the worship of God within the church. If the God of Scripture is not their God as seen in their life (what they say and do), what will be the result? I think we can clearly see the result.
If you can pick and choose what you believe from Scripture, as William Placher evidently does, then what more is Scripture than just another book on the shelf? If you can read the words, written by the inspiration of God, and say they are not relevant, then why bother? If you can personally interpret Scripture, as Dr. Gench seems to believe, then we can all agree to disagree and go about our merry ways. But, are we not supposed to be going God’s way?
The problem with our denomination and many others today is the desire to please people, be politically and culturally correct, be acceptable. Isn’t that just what Lot was doing when he offered his daughters to the crowd who demanded he give them the two “men” (angels) for their abuse? He forgot, it seems at that moment, just who God is – but the angels didn’t. They did what they were sent to do. The people who chose to live in darkness were blinded and then were destroyed in their sins.
Unrepentant sin in our lives and in our church body is like leprosy – it eats away and eventually destroys. If we want to survive, we have to quit sidestepping the issue of sin within the church in preference for our own desires of unity. True unity will come when we decide to all get behind God’s true and living Word with the courage to obey and love the Lord our God in spite of what the world around us says and does.
Debi Grenseman Walla Walla, Wash.
About ‘conservative evangelicalism’
Posted Wednesday, February 26, 2003
I am new to the Presbyterian Church by most standards(5 years) and had never read a “Layman.” I come from a quite conservative Christian background, but your newsletter is beyond anything I ever experienced within “Conservative Evangelicalism.”
I expected some reactionary and negative material, but your publication had so much hate and arrogant bitterness seething from its pages that it actually hurt me just to get through that one issue. Are they all this full of pharisaical rhetoric or was this just a special “venting” issue?
My advice to all of you who think that for some reason you are closer to God than those “liberals,” guess what? You are just as far, maybe even farther, from understanding the kingdom as they are because you have put yourselves into the place of God. And those are plenty big shoes to fill, you know what I mean?
Gary McAlpin Dubuque, Iowa
A nation at war and the PCUSA
Posted Tuesday, February 25, 2003
I watched a dynamite sermon by Charles Stanley of In Touch Ministries this morning while getting dressed for church. The sermon is entitled a “Nation at War.”
Unfortunately, the sermon’s message will be heard in too few PCUSA pulpits. A synopsis of the message is pasted below. I have ordered two tapes of the sermon. One copy I hope to show in our Sunday school class and the other I am giving to my son who is serving in the Marine Corps.
The sermon should be required viewing by every single one of our denominational leaders who are busy turning the PCUSA into the “Out of Touch Ministries.”
Charles P. Preston Jr. Tappahannock Presbyterian Chapel, Tappahannock, Va.