Achtemeier denies ‘a basic reality of our Presbyterian past’
Posted Friday, February 29, 2008
In his rationale for his overture, Dr. Mark Achtemeier writes that, “The Presbyterian Church has always resisted efforts to define ‘essentials’ in the abstract.”
This is simply not true. Achtemeier makes no mention of the General Assembly’s 1892 “Portland Deliverance,” which made a high view of Scripture – inerrancy – binding on all Presbyterian ministers.
The “Portland Deliverance” was affirmed by the 1899 General Assembly, and the 1910 General Assembly declared five doctrines to be “essential and necessary.” Those doctrines included inerrancy, the virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily Resurrection, and the miracle working power of Christ. These five points of doctrine were reaffirmed by the general assemblies of 1916 and 1923.
It was not until the late 1920s that these five doctrines were made non-binding on pastors. Yet, it must be said that, from 1892 to 1927, the Presbyterian Church (USA) did define essentials tenets of the faith. For Achtemeier to argue otherwise is to deny a basic reality of our Presbyterian past.
Rev. Jeff McDonald pastor, Murray Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) , Murray, Neb.
Comments are ‘unfortunately ugly’
Posted Friday, February 29, 2008
Carol Joan Schaef’s comments [Letters, February 28, 2008] about the Evangelical Presbyterian Church and women are as ugly and ill-informed as they are illogical.
Her pathetic assertion that “an abusive man could purposefully seek out EPC churches to further abusive situations against women” is as mean-spirited as it is ridiculous. But then Carol goes on to suggest that “we should all think about this the next time we read about a husband killing a wife,” equating the EPC with murderers.
I pray that Carol’s thought process is not really captive to such a gross and tortured mis-perception of reality. It’s just plain ugly, and has no place in public discourse.
Forrest Norman Hudson, Ohio
A response to the letter by Chris Joiner
Posted Friday, February 29, 2008
Chris Joiner has written a comment [Letters, February 27, 2008] about recent exchanges between members of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Church in America:
- The fact that these two Reformed bodies are arguing over women’s ordination, with each apparently trying to establish their Reformed bona fides by distancing themselves from this question and linking it to naturalism, should be a huge wake-up call to any PCUSA woman who thinks for a moment that she will be recognized as a leader in these denominations. The EPC may ordain women in a very few cases (I’ve yet to see statistics on this), but at best they keep them at arms length. “Love for the brethren” indeed.
First of all, I am very glad that he has written this because it serves to reinforce the point that I was trying to make: When we conservatives engage in infighting, it brings aid and comfort to our enemies. This is precisely how the liberals took over in the first place.
Secondly, I personally am in favor of allowing women to be whatever they feel called by God to be. As a career missionary who teaches church history, I am aware of all the intrepid women who braved danger and hardship to bring the Gospel to remote areas while Scripturally qualified males stayed home and ministered in churches with air conditioning and thick carpeting. And it is in those areas where single women missionaries went that that the Church is posting the most dramatic growth.
Thirdly, it is true that the EPC, unlike the Presbyterian Church (USA), has no quota system. It doesn’t do affirmative action. It doesn’t drag women kicking and screaming into the session room. This means that when a woman in the EPC attains leadership status, she had something else going for her besides being female.
Fourthly, I suspect that many women who reject the EPC because of a lack of preponderance of female leadership will find other reasons to do so, such as a high view of Scripture, a consistent refusal to be politically correct, and a tendency to be on the right side of the fence in other areas as well. In short, we are unapologetically, irretrievably conservative.
Finally, how does Mr. Joiner know “at best they keep them at arms length?” I have been a member of the PCUS, the PCUSA and now the EPC. How much time has Mr. Joiner spent in an EPC church?
And then he mentioned something about “Love for the brethren.” Okay, let’s talk about that. Out of love for the brethren, the PCUSA deposes pastors. Out of love for the brethren, the PCUSA dissolves sessions. Out of love for the brethren, the PCUSA changes locks on doors. Out of love for the brethren, the PCUSA takes congregations to court. Truly, the love of the PCUSA is a wondrous thing.
Larry Brown African Bible College, Lilongwe, Malawi
A response to the letter by Toby Brown
Posted Friday, February 29, 2008
Maybe I should clarify my position. I don’t think the Presbyterian Church (USA) represents Presbyterianism. I don’t think they are Presbyterian or Reformed. They have departed from the historic Reformed faith and have descended into something I call “Presbyterianite.”
What’s funny about this new belief that comes from liberal presbyteries like Chicago and others is that they really don’t know what they believe, but they know they don’t believe in classic Christianity. They throw the term “Reformed” around like they are the authorities but, in reality, they have no clue.
So, I agree with you, Louisville thinks it has the corner on the “Reformed” and “Presbyterian” labels. They don’t realize that they have departed so much from the Reformed faith as to not even know it. There are times when they don’t even seem to know the Christian faith, much less the Reformed formulation.
The “Presbyterianites” really have nothing to stand on. They all seem to say we should be Presbyterian Church (USA), but they can’t answer the all important question of “Why?”
I am well aware of P&R Publishing, as well as others. A little bit of background on me: I went to Westminster Seminary in Philly because I wanted to learn about the Bible and Reformed faith, not liberal politics like they teach at McCormick Theological Seminary. I am currently a student at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis (the PCA seminary).
I respect Mr. Brown’s position, and I hope I’ve clarified mine a bit.
Bob Price associate pastor, First Presbyterian Church, Downers Grove, Ill.
Women and the EPC, PCA
Posted Thursday, February 28, 2008
I’d like to thank Chris Joiner for his post [Letters, February 27, 2008], which included a discussion on the ordination of women. Those in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church/Presbyterian Church in America and other denominations who are against the ordination of women may be micro-focusing on a few lines of Scripture without looking at the entire issue.
I believe that the issue of women participating in the church is multifaceted. Ordination is the issue that gets most attention, but there are many other levels in churches in which this issue is present. Many divorced women are seen as having failed to serve a man and single women are seen as lacking the support of a man. Men in both these categories are viewed very differently.
Churches abound with leadership classes tailored for men, before-work support groups that are male-only, and how to evangelize in the workplace tailored for men only.
Organizations for women mainly circle around the needs of children, domestic issues, knitting and quilting and other items typically associated with women. While these groups are needed and benefit many, women who are professionals are seldom, if ever, considered in many churches. In this way, any woman who is not a stay-at-home-mom may have very little role or support system in churches. Conservative churches are sometimes known for this type of stereotyping.
In this way, I would like to expand upon Chris’ comments – women’s ordination is a visible topic, but the root cause goes very deep into our culture and society. Many men are uncomfortable with women in leadership. However, many women are equally uncomfortable with some men in leadership, but are accepting of this with God’s grace. The experience of uniting in Christ with those with whom your initial impression was a stereotypical one can be enriching and empowering.
The Presbyterian Outlook recently had an article titled “Interfaith domestic violence coalition plans Capitol Hill briefing Feb. 13 on 2009 agenda.” The Presbyterian Church (USA) has been involved in women’s issues, has domestic violence programs, while the EPC has very little or none. While the EPC has a position paper on domestic violence, it is likely that not much from it will be implemented as it would impact men.
In the EPC, an abusive man could purposefully seek out EPC churches to further abusive situations against women. Women have very little voice in the EPC and divorce is only permitted in the case of desertion, according to their position paper. We should all think and pray about this the next time a story is in the news about a husband killing a wife, which unfortunately repeats itself many times a day. Any woman who is in a church that is trying to leave the PCUSA should think carefully about the treatment of women in the EPC before going on this path.
While failure to ordain women is a tragic issue in the EPC, the issue of ordaining male abusers of women continues with very little press or discussion in the EPC. God has called many groups of people into service including women. Denominations that truly want to reach people and bring them into God’s care will not create many levels of barriers including gender.
Carol Joan Schaef
Rejoicing over GAPJC ruling may be short-lived
Posted Thursday, February 28, 2008
While we rejoice at this period of peace in the aftermath of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission rulings, it may be short-lived. The Achtemeier overture will, most likely, be passed by the General Assembly, based on the last 15 years of experience.
Based upon the votes on Overture B (1996), Overture A (1997), Overture O (2001) and the list of constitutional presbyteries, 86 presbyteries (49%) will probably approve the overture as follows:
- 58 certain presbyteries: (Albany, Baltimore, Boston, Cascades, Cayuga-Syracuse, Chicago, Denver, Des Moines, Detroit, East Iowa, Eastern Oklahoma, Eastern Oregon, Elizabeth, Foothills, Genesee Valley, Geneva, Giddings-Lovejoy, Heartland, Hudson River, John Knox, Lackawanna, Lake Michigan, Long Island, Mackinac, Maumee Valley, Miami, Mid-Kentucky, Milwaukee, Minnesota Valleys, National Capital, New Brunswick, New Castle, New York City, Newark, Newton, North Central Iowa, Northern Kansas, N. New England, N. New York, Northern Plains, Ohio Valley, Palisades, Redwoods, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Fe, Scioto Valley, Sierra Blanca, S’eastern Illinois, Sou/New England, Susquehanna Valley, Twin Cities, Utah, Utica, Western Kentucky, Western New York, Western Reserve and Winnegbago).
- Another 28 trending progressive will likely vote for it: (Boise, Carlisle, Central Nebraska, Cincinnati, Dakota, de Cristo, Eastern Virginia, Eastminster, Florida, Grace, Greater Atlanta, Homestead, James, Lehigh, Memphis, Middle Tennessee, Mission, Missouri Rivier Valley, Monmouth, New Hope, Pacific, Philadelphia, Pines, Salem, Transylvania, Tres Rios, Trinity and West Jersey).
If two more presbyteries back the overture, it becomes part of the Presbyterian Church (USA) constitution. This is one reason why I still advocate a two-synod structure. We need to gather the evangelical and Biblically orthodox Presbyterian churches in the PCUSA into safe structures within the PCUSA.
It is a terrible thing that we have not attempted to move evangelical congregations from progressive presbyteries. What would Henrietta Mears think of what happened to the great evangelical beacon of Los Angeles, First Hollywood Presbyterian? We need a delegate to present the two-synod structure overture and we need a delegate to present the Beaver-Butler overture.
John Almquist
Both Deneberg and the PCUSA miss the boat entirely
Posted Thursday, February 28, 2008
Mr. Denenberg is more than correct in his assessments regarding the media’s tendency to “sanitize.” Euphemistic language has proven anathema not only to classical Protestant apologetics, but a barrier to progress and understanding.
Having said that, I would submit to Mr.Denenberg that the very appraisals he chides are quite likely no more rooted in misnomer than his own. In light of crypto-Guevarist media bias, there is rarely such a thing as policies or moratoriums whose mechanisms and motifs aren’t a tad maladroit. Hence, the very notion that we in this quarter of the Earth are sufficiently advised in all the underlying factors to make a thoroughly intelligent analysis across the board is reflective of the very naivety upon which any ethically-dismissive tendency in government would come to depend.
In light of the penchant our central government has to keep its own citizens in the dark about many matters here at home, is anyone of us grounded enough in the facts of discord in the Middle East to be assured no facets of American bureaucracy caused or exacerbated any of its tensions? Are we conceited enough or, for that matter, doltish enough to behave as if under the notion we’ve been told everything? Such posturing is tantamount, in my view, to hypocrisy and selective enforcement stratagems that are base abridgments to the eternal vigilance that is the core requisite of freedom.
My distant cousin, President Benjamin Harrison, attended the first Pan-American Conference in 1889 and championed discourse and commerce among the nations, while maintaining a 48 percent tariff on imported goods with the supervening intent to protect the American worker. He allocated funds accrued from the tariff to revitalize the infrastructure the United States.
But in the matter of struggles among the nations, he said, ” We Americans have no commission from God to police the world.” Wise words from a long-dead Presbyterian elder, as he obviously had sense enough to know that charity begins at home.
The Presbyterian Church (USA) reflects the government in the sense that it is inundated by self-serving, irreverent contingents to the point it has lost sight of this age-old adage regarding charity. Those at the helm of our denomination’s centralized bureaucracy are therefore in no moral position to indict, accuse or anything else due to their egregious Biblical and confessional declension. The internal threat they pose to Christendom is, in the spiritual vein, no less deleterious than any militaristic contrivance employed on cue from Osama Bin Laden.
If Mr. Denenberg is as passionate about the Middle East as his rather vitriolic finger-pointing would imply, he would be well advised to seek the counsel of the Book of Genesis for the real root cause. Look up a lady named Hagar and her son Ishmael.
Eric Wells Boardman, Ohio
I have a right to expect much more from the PCUSA in showing leadership’
Posted Wednesday, February 27, 2008
A few years ago, I returned to the church after an absence of many years. During my early years, I was raised a Lutheran and later attended a Presbyterian college. In those formative years, I found the church a stiff and unwelcoming place which did not always have the welcome mat our for unbelievers. When I returned to my current Presbyterian church, I found a very welcoming environment and a truly exceptional church leadership. I found strong value systems and a leadership which did not command respect, but which had respect because of deep-seated Christian principles and values (my kind of people).
I did not expect to see a church General Assembly engaged in intramural warfare over very basic Biblical principles. The battle raging about gays and lesbians makes absolutely no sense. Too many people have walked away from the roots of our nation and the Christian religion in the name of multiculturalism and some of the other current trivia. Some denominations have buckled to the whim of the current culture and have abandoned their roots. Look to the Anglican church as a prime example of what I call the “Church of the What’s Happening Now.”
Ordaining gays, and accepting whatever current culture imposes is not exhibiting leadership. I recently read that one English cleric suggested we should allow Muslims to have their own religious courts, sharia law and processes. So much for the rule of law in England. Understand that some of the people leading this charge to the left are the very leadership of the Anglican church (if such can be called leadership).
I have a right to expect much more from the Presbyterian Church (USA) in showing leadership, and would hope that they take a strong stand on moral values and on the issues of gays in the church. I do not want to see the PCUSA become irrelevant and succumb to the current-in-vogue push for multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is synonymous with the “if it feels good, do it” philosophy. When we abandon our values, what do we have left?
Jay Dull
A reply regarding the letter from Mississippi Presbytery
Posted Wednesday, February 27, 2008
A question:
With whom would the complaint against the New Wineskins Association of Churches and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church be filed? The World Alliance of Reformed Churches? Federal/state court? The Evangelical Presbyterian Church Permanent Judicial Commission?
Dave Moody Trinity Presbyterian Church, (NWAC-PCUSA)
A reply regarding the PCA and EPC
Posted Wednesday, February 27, 2008
I have read with some interest the exchange between the representatives of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Church in America in this forum. It should be instructive to any Presbyterian Church (USA) member who is thinking about leaving this denomination for either of those denominations.
The fact that these two Reformed bodies are arguing over women’s ordination, with each apparently trying to establish their Reformed bona fides by distancing themselves from this question and linking it to naturalism, should be a huge wake-up call to any PCUSA woman who thinks for a moment that she will be recognized as a leader in these denominations. The EPC may ordain women in a very few cases (I’ve yet to see statistics on this), but at best they keep them at arms length. “Love for the brethren” indeed.
The EPC and the PCA certainly have the right to hold to any theological position they want, no matter how anachronistic. But my prayer is that those who are thinking about leaving the PCUSA will not be sold a bill of goods. Remember, it was one of the leaders of the New Wineskins (who is now EPC, I think) who said they would only go with the EPC if we “can bring our women with us.” I’ve yet to hear a more condescending comment directed at ordained women, but it was very revealing.
This little exchange in The Layman Online (which seems to have become a house organ of the EPC and PCA), for those who have ears to hear, should give us all some pause.
Chris Joiner
The arrogance of the PCUSA
Posted Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Larry Brown’s quote [Letters, February 25, 2008]: “The PCUSA has lost 31 percent of its members since the amalgamation of 1983. I wonder if the hierarchs of the PCUSA ever ask themselves, “Gee, are we doing something wrong?” Another episode in the drama, “As the PCUSA Turns.” The hierarchs of the Presbyterian Church (USA) in their divine right would never admit doing anything wrong.
The same hierarchs would never admit wrongness even if our Lord Jesus Christ proved the same to the hierarchs of the PCUSA. The hierarchs of the PCUSA would say, “Now Lord, you just do not understand because this is a different day and age not like it was in your day, Lord, with all do respect.” The hierarchs would fall over themselves as if they were drunk with alcohol explaining away their sin and wickedness to the point that it might be the fault of our Lord Jesus Christ asking such a stupid question. The question being, “Is the PCUSA doing something wrong?”
The hierarchs of the PCUSA are never wrong in their infinite wisdom – just side-tracked, they might admit. The hierarchs think they are infinite, but really the hierarchs are legends of their own minds.
Louis Stephen Nowasielski Wilmington, Del.
A reply regarding the letter, ‘Are we even ‘Presbyterian?’
Posted Wednesday, February 27, 2008
It is interesting to me that in Bob Price’s recent letter [Letters, February 26, 2008] he assumes that being Presbyterian means being tied to what is going on in the Presbyterian Church (USA) denomination. How interesting that even evangelicals within our organization still make the assumption that being Presbyterian means being PCUSA! I bet Louisville is cheering this line of thinking.
If Rev. Price wants to be Presbyterian and he has a problem with the theological ooze that comes from Louisville, then may I suggest that he look to the other fine Presbyterian publishers that are at work brining Gospel-oriented and Reformed thinking resources to Christians today? Whether one looks to the Layman’s publishing house or Great Commission Publications or P&R, there are many, many examples of Presbyterian resources that are available to those who honor the Reformation – even within the PCUSA! All you have to do is look.
Toby L. Brown pastor, First Presbyterian Church, Cuero, Texas
Fussing and fighting
Posted Wednesday, February 27, 2008
I get so sad when I see all the time, energy and money expended in meetings, suing and counter-suing in the name of religion.
For some time, I have followed the “Back to Jerusalem” movement which has grown out of the house church movement in China. I checked their web site recently and printed a Q & A sheet. These are a couple of quotes:
“In March 2000, the first group of 36 Back to Jerusalem missionaries left China. These were all men and women who had been in full time ministry for the Lord for many years, with much fruit. These were not new believers, or young people looking for something to do. No, these were all battle-hardened warriors of the Gospel who have proven God faithful and experienced much hardship. Almost all of them had been arrested for the Gospel, imprisoned, beaten, slandered and tortured. …”
“We have several key principles that we believe God has taught us and which we plan to take into the mission field. For example, we refuse to be drawn into the spirit of denominationalism in any way. We are going to preach the Gospel and see sinners come to the feet of Jesus and experience a new life that He won for them on the Cross. We don’t want any part of promoting any denomination. We only want to promote Jesus and ask the Holy Spirit to confirm whether Jesus is alive or not in the hearts of people everywhere. Nowhere in God’s Word does it say that if we lift up our church or methods or doctrine will the Holy Spirit bless us and bring revival. But Jesus clearly told us who we should lift up: ‘But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself'” (John 12:32).
I think these words should speak to all of us.
Pete Simpson Bloomington, Minn.
A reply to the letter by Bill Little
Posted Wednesday, February 27, 2008
I am writing this letter in response to the letter [Letters, February 13, 2008] by the Rev. Bill Little of Mt. Vernon Community Presbyterian Church in McKeesport, Pa.
Just a little background might be helpful: Many years ago, I was an elder in a congregation that voted on leaving the Presbyterian Church (USA). Because I did not think it right for me to split a local congregation, my wife and I stayed in the PCUSA, and eventually I became a minister of the Word and sacrament.
I am always loath to say where there is a “line in the sand.” God calls people to serve where He wills them to serve, some in healthy growing congregations, others in slowly dying ones. Naturally, it is more fun to serve in the first category. Throughout history, God has placed some Christians in service to wise leaders and others in service to fools. The question is not, therefore, “Have we reached a line in the sand?” but “Where is God calling me to serve?”
Our family stayed in the PCUSA to be a part of its renewal. Now, as of today, I can’t say that we’ve been very successful. I do hope we’ve been faithful.
What will it take for the PCUSA to return to health and avoid collapse? I have a few ideas:
1. The Holy Spirit must work in the hearts and minds of all of us. There is no renewal without God’s direct intervention by the Spirit of Christ.
2. Our members, elders, pastors and others must make a commitment to live out the Christian life in ways that show the difference Christian faith makes. The world cares little or nothing for our battles. They would like to see the love of Christ lived out in our individual lives and congregations. This does not mean at all that we abandon historic Christian faith and morals. Rather, it means we intentionally live them out in our day and in our time, in families, in neighborhoods, in businesses, in neighborhoods and in government.
3. We need to return to the deep roots of the apostolic faith and our Reformed tradition. So often we focus on avant garde theologies and esoteric theological difficulties, forgetting to emphasize the great apostolic, catholic tradition of which we are a part.
4. We must rethink our polity. Instead of thinking in terms of maintaining a “top-down” bureaucracy, we need to be congregationally-focused. Rather than speaking of presbyteries as “governing bodies,” we need to think of them as “servant bodies.” The Form of Government report was well-intentioned, but it failed to adequately confront our need for a new form of connectionalism that addresses the needs of our post-industrial and post-modern culture.
This is not the place for me to state my concerns about the recent decisions of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission and Advisory Opinion No. 21. I shall just hint that the good news that the GAPJC sees that mandatory requirements are mandatory should not blind us to hidden dangers in other parts of the opinions. I, for one, think that sessions and presbyteries are free to state and/or restate what they believe about the Constitution at any time, and attempts to silence them by judicial fiat are dangerous. Were it not for those presbyteries, such as ours, that had the courage to state their disagreement with the PUP report, I doubt that we would be in the happy position we are in on this day.
The opinions also err when they purport to prevent presbyteries from attempting to state what they believe are essentials. Although I myself am skeptical about such attempts, it is impossible to examine candidates unless one has some idea of what it is important to examine candidates on and what a correct answer might be to those questions. Presbytery approved standards are one way of addressing this problem. If a presbytery adopts a faulty or overly-restrictive set of standards, the GAPJC could then hear any objections to a particular standard or application of standards. This is, in fact, the way it was when Westminster standards were the norm. This aspect of the GAPJC decision and of Advisory Opinion No. 21 is most troubling and will not help in the process of renewing the PCUSA. I am tempted to point out that the opinions are also another example of a “top-down” attempt to prevent dissent.
Finally, I am sorry that there continues to be a misapprehension among those who supported the PUP report about the utility of authoritative interpretations to overcome mandatory provisions of which they disapprove. Were such an attempt successful, it is difficult to see how the peace, unity and purity of the denomination would be promoted.
I hope I have not bored you and the readers of The Layman Online with this overly long answer to your question. God bless you in all you do
Chris Scruggs Advent Presbyterian Church , Cordova, Tenn.
Once again, the PCUSA stands polity on its head’
Posted Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Concerning Covenant Presbyterian Church in Fort Meyer, Fla., a letter from General Presbyter Rev. Graham Hart is quoted as declaring that the presbytery is “safeguarding the rights, as per the Book of Order in G-8.0600, of the significant and sizable group of loyal PCUSA members who wish to remain as Covenant Presbyterian Church, PCUSA.”
He is also quoted as saying, “While 787 members at Covenant’s congregational meeting on Feb. 3, 2008, voted for dismissal, 554 members, by either not voting (317) or voting against dismissal (237), did not express that desire.” (Emphasis added.)
And once again, the Presbyterian Church (USA) stands its polity on its head. They are oh so concerned about the Book of Order when it supports their foreordained result, but when it doesn’t they just ignore it. So, they apply G-8.0600, but not G-7.0305 and G-7.0308.
Per the Book of Order, a quorum for a congregational meeting is 10 percent of the active members, unless the congregation asks for a lesser percentage, or the congregation adopts a greater quorum. Decisions are made by majority rule. Thus, on the reported membership of Covenant, a meeting of 134 people could have made any other binding decision with on a vote of 68 members (50 percent plus 1). But at a meeting attended by nearly eight times the required quorum, a majority of 550 was insufficient in the eyes of the presbytery.
The Book of Order does not allow absentee balloting or proxies. Yet, the presbytery assumes that those who had notice of the meeting and elected not to participate must be counted as voting against dismissal. Sounds like a de facto absentee ballot to me.
And consider: Even if the absentees could be properly counted as “no” votes, the decision to leave would have carried by 233 votes. But then, in the PCUSA, application of and obedience to the Constitution is also optional.
Michael R. ‘Mac’ McCarty