Action is contrary to our Constitution and the very nature of faith
Posted Thursday, March 30, 2006
I thought you’d like to see how we are working in Mission Presbytery to stop this apostasy in our midst.
- Colleagues in Christ:
- Many of you know about the recent revealing of the St. Andrew’s Apostasy – where the session knowingly admitted an avowed atheist political activist into membership. Also, you may have read the article by Jim Rigby about why this was done. On a leftist political web site, this article by Rigby attempts to explain and defend the indefensible and offensive action of his church session. I use the term “his” knowing that the session there must be packed with Rigby cronies and sycophants, for who else would ever endorse such a course of action – one that is contrary to not just our constitution (which is violated in that church on a daily basis!), but also the very nature of faith itself?
- I wanted to share just one small portion of Rigby’s article on this action that explains it all for us to see:
- “Without religion we would eliminate some of the worst chapters in human history brought on by the religious inquisitors and religious terrorists. But we would also eliminate some of history’s best chapters. Imagine a world with no Gandhi, no Martin Luther King, and no Dorothy Day.”
- So, here he reveals himself to the world: Rigby cannot see a world without Gandhi, MLK or Dorothy Day. But, apparently, he can see a world without Christ! This is not heresy, friends. This is apostasy – the abandoning of the Gospel itself from one who is within our fold!
- I do not say this lightly and I know the potential consequences of an accusation such as this one from our church hierarchy. But I also know whom to fear, from the words of our Lord himself: “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28).
- Our prayers should with the session that is filing charges in this case and with those who have abandoned the Lord Jesus. Perhaps they will repent. May God forgive us for allowing this to go on for so long!
- In Christ,
- Toby
Toby L. Brown, pastor First Presbyterian Church, Cuero, Texas
Rogers put culture ahead of the Bible
Posted Thursday, March 30, 2006
Richard McClendon [letter to the editor, posted March 28, 2006] is absolutely correct when he says that “seminaries are part of the problem.” All one has to do is read the March 24th article on Jack Rogers’ recent book. Jack’s book, Jesus, the Bible and Homosexuality condones homosexuality and is endorsed by an interesting group of pastors, professors and others closely connected to the LGBT movement. Being published by the Presbyterian Publishing Corporation adds little credibility. Robert Bohl is chairman of this publishing organization and comes from a long line of very liberal General Assembly moderators.
Jack is a former G.A. moderator and seminary professor. Minister friends tell me that at one time Jack was an evangelical and respected theologian, as the article states. Unfortunately, he put culture ahead of the Bible and became very progressive (?) in his thinking. Also unfortunately, there are many seminary professors of the same stripe. The result is a large number of pastors who are not grounded in Scripture and who strive to follow the world’s culture.
The PCUSA and other mainline denominations are struggling with what they truly believe; much of it not Biblical. Pluralism, sexual immorality, political correctness, etc., are being condoned as acceptable expressions of our faith. We have learned little from Christ’s admonition to the church at Laodicea. We stand on the verge of being “spit from his mouth.”
Jack, as a former evangelical, you have lost your first love and must recognize the implication of this. God is patient, but he is not a patsy. Sorry, Jack, think I will pass on reading this one. When I read fiction, I prefer mysteries.
Bill Arthur Greenville, S.C.
Happy that COM will look into latest example of apostasy infecting PCUSA
Posted Thursday, March 30, 2006
I am heartened that, at the least, the COM will take the time to examine events and circumstances of this latest example of rampant apostasy infecting our denomination. At a bare minimum, they should dismiss the sitting session, assume original jurisdiction over St. Andrews, exclude this atheist and suspend Mr. Rigby. Of course, how likely any of those things are is really questionable in the church of “what’s happenin’ now.”
Rev. James C. Yearsley Tampa, Fla.
Jensen is received as a member of the church and left to wallow in unbelief
Posted Thursday, March 30, 2006
Jim Rigby says that Dr. Jensen has pledged to follow the core teachings of Jesus, but I believe Dr. Jensen has deceived Rigby or Rigby isn’t aware of one of the core teaching of Jesus in Matthew 28:19-20.
- “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to do all that I commanded you. And lo I am with you always even to the end of the age.”
It is clearly impossible for Jensen to follow this core teaching. Therefore, he must intend to pick and choose which core teachings he will follow. It is also most likely Jensen will be the sole authority of which teachings are core. What a mess!
This is so wrong on so many levels that it is nearly impossible to know where to begin or what to say. It would have been better for the church to tell Jensen that he was welcome at their worship services, but that membership in the church would not be fair either to him or the church. This would have afforded the opportunity for the church to minister to Jensen and for him to decide if he really wanted to be part of a fellowship whose views depart so radically from his own. Instead, he is received as a member and is left to wallow in unbelief.
But perhaps the views of Jensen and the congregation that received him as a member are not that divergent. If so, may God have mercy on both him and the congregation and upon us all.
Mike Sorocak, elder Westminster Presbyterian Church, Mobile, Ala.
Why are we, as Presbyterians, members of the WCC?’
Posted Thursday, March 30, 2006
I recently saw an article in the Honolulu Advertiser concerning the World Council of Churches’ position on the Iraq war. They stated that the United States was raining terror down on the Iraqi people, the war was unjust, we were killing innocent people, etc. They also stated that the Presbyterian Church (USA) was part of the World Council.
This article brought back some memories that I hadn’t thought about in a long time. About 35 years ago, while I was a POW in North Vietnam, I was called out to what we called “A Quiz.” These were sessions with our captors that usually weren’t very pleasant. They would come into your cell, tie your hands behind your back, blindfold you and then on the way from your cell to the quiz room they would make sure that you ran into a few walls and missed some steps here and there.
Once in the quiz room, your blindfold was removed, you sat on a stool and a V officer who could speak fair English would start the “discussion.” This particular day it started with the friendly approach. After some one-sided talk, he asked if I were a Christian. I said yes. He then asked what denomination? I said Presbyterian. He then shoved a newspaper clipping across the table. I forget the newspaper, but we mostly saw the New York Times, Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. (Guess what, we never saw pro-war articles.) In the article, the World Council of Churches had stated that the Americans were raining terror from the skies killing innocent women, children and old folks, and that we were criminals fighting an unjust and immoral war. (We had been listening to the exact same words from our captors for several years.) The quiz lasted for about another hour and it was not very friendly. It took several days to recover from that “discussion.”
The World Council made many anti-war statements during the Vietnam War. My wife, Carole, wrote them letters, both representing herself and as chairman of the National League of Families, none of which they answered.
My question is this: If the majority of the Presbyterians don’t support the views of the World Council of Churches, why are we, as Presbyterians, members of the WCC? In my opinion, the WCC is hurting our country. Because of the WCC, I was beaten.
I guarantee you that if we had POWs today, they would see this latest article reporting the anti-military statements of the WCC. Why do we allow them to use our name? Why do we fund them?
Jim Hickerson
Overturn the Spahr decision
Posted Tuesday, March 28, 2006
The Presbyterian system is reaping the results of its “lukewarm theological” claiming of its Reformed roots founded in a structure firmly based on Scripture; but, rather relying on pseudo-intellectual and sociological/political appeasements which have at best diluted its spiritual leadership and place in the world.
The handwriting was being written on the ecclesiastical walls of many so-called “prophetic” voices that would deny the prophetic voice of the majority. By condescending to the lowest common denominator, the church has resultantly claimed its identity as a “political correct-seeking social agency” rather than a fellowship of confessing Christians who are unabashed in declaring their Savior to be Jesus Christ.
“Structure binds anxiety” and gives creative and constructive culmination to its centered faith; however, without that creative structure, anarchy reigns and the life of the church becomes not Christ centered, but becomes the idiosyncratic needs and desires of each person for total approval over the historic tenets of the church.
Such a change in directions will ultimately lead to a splintering of the church before known as the Presbyterian Church (USA). I will pray that the GA will hear a prophetic claim to reclaim our historic church, and in the process will demand the decision rendered in the Spahr case to be overturned. It is an affront to the historic church that the decision rendered as being of “no offense” and acted “within her right of conscience” was ever entertained by that investigating committee. For the church at large to accept this obfuscation of The Book of Confession and the Book of Order would be for many the last straw.
Rev. Gilbert J. Fitzsimmons, Ph.D. Knoxville United Church , Pittsburgh, Pa.
How to handle sexual sin
Posted Tuesday, March 28, 2006
While in one sense all sin is equally heinous, we must admit that not all sins are equally grave. How should we handle those who claim to be Christians and live in sexual sin? Paul wrote that we should excommunicate such a person in order that the person’s flesh may be destroyed and may be saved on the last day (I Cor. 5). Paul also says we should not associate with people who live in sexual sin and lay hold to the name of Christ. That would definitely make dialogue a tad difficult, let alone holding meetings within the PCUSA.
Geoff Robinson Haddon Heights, N.J.
What’s a ‘committed bisexual?’
Posted Tuesday, March 28, 2006
The brochure says Rogers takes “on the most divisive issue today” and “argues unequivocally for the ordination and marriage of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender.” What’s the definition of a commited bisexual?
Brenda Winter Luverne, Minn.
Standing still is the real danger
Posted Tuesday, March 28, 2006
In response to Sarah Norman’s reply, isn’t it dangerous not to have papers on the cornerstone doctrines of our faith? From my point of view, part of our problem is that we have lost the ability to speak about our faith. We have reduced our language to that which will fit on a bumper sticker or bracelet. The Trinity paper is laid out clearly and convincingly. It points to the relationship that the Godhead desires with all of humanity. Perhaps we should spend more time discussing our faith with one another and going out and putting it into action in the world rather than arguing. The Trinity paper is a “dangerous toehold,” but isn’t it more dangerous not to take the step?
Karen Wagner
Say goodbye to Kirkpatrick
Posted Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Clifton Kirkpatrick needs to be run out of office in the PCUSA. He is against everything this country was founded upon. If he hates America and capitalism, let him move to France and ruin that country as he is trying to do to this one with his liberal biases and misinterpretations of Holy Scripture.
Jim Wyche, former PCUSA minister
Some other problems
Posted Tuesday, March 28, 2006
While I agree with Brother Arthur’s point, I would suggest that “denominationalism” and “seminaries” are part of the problem.
Richard McClendon, elder
Left is trying to create separation
Posted Tuesday, March 28, 2006
As a concerned member of the PCUSA residing in Ohio, I would like to endorse the stated position of the Presbyterian Coalition on the Spahr verdict. It seems clear that elements of the PCUSA are doing everything they can to create a split in the denomination while they attempt to blame the conservative elements of the church for the tension. The overwhelming majority of the PCUSA membership have no doubts as to who is trying to create a separation in the denomination and property rights won’t change that perception.
Ronald Everett
God does not want us to overcome enmity at the expense of truth
Posted Friday, March 24, 2006
Rev. Bob McQuilkin [letter to the editor, posted March 21, 2006] writes: “If you begin with the assumption that there can be no dialogue on these issues – that those who see the possibility of a faithful gay union as ones who are ignoring God’s Word – then you close the door to the ‘inspiration of the Holy Spirit.'”
This statement implies that new revelations of the Spirit that modify the teachings of Scripture are permitted. Such revelations are specifically proscribed in the Westminster Confession in Chapter 1, Paragraph 6.
“We can yet learn from one another in these contentious times, and be an expression of God’s good purpose to overcome enmity among us.”
Yes, we can learn from one another to the extent that the Spirit faithfully bears witness to the truth of Scripture through us. Enmity comes from our failure to be instruments of the Spirit in bearing faithful witness to the Word of God. I do not believe that God wants us to overcome enmity at the expense of truth, however.
“None of us can claim ‘obedience to the Scriptures’ in our lives. Sin abounds in our lives, and we can pray for the humility to acknowledge that – while we may not understand same-sex commitments – they stand alongside other ‘sins’ that include divorce, failure to love enemies, lust for power and money, our propensity to seek revenge.
I concur with Rev. McQuilkin in identifying same-sex commitments as sinful. Yes, all of us are guilty of sin daily. And daily we should confess our sins, repent of them and give thanks to God for the forgiveness graciously bestowed upon us through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Those advocating for change, however, seem to want to reclassify committed same-sex relationships from the category of sin to a category of those things pleasing to God and blessed by God. I believe that position to be contrary to the teaching of Scripture.
Doug Coartney, elder Eureka, Ill.
Letter is example fuzzy-minded rationalization that got us into this mess
Posted Friday, March 24, 2006
I find Bob McQuilkin’s letter [letter to the editor, posted March 21, 2006] a wonderful example of the lack of leadership and fuzzy-minded rationalization that got us in the mess we are now in. He is perfectly correct in his statement that none of us is perfect (although I believe Paul said it first and best). But far too many of Mr. MacQuilkin’s ilk of the mid to late 20th century decided that our fallibility was sufficient grounds to abdicate responsibility. “Oh my, it’s just one more sin among many – how can we condemn it?” seems to have been the watchword. The more faithful question is, “How could you not?”
Rev. Jim Yearsley Tampa, Fla.
Faithful people seek forgiveness through repentance in obedience to Scripture
Posted Friday, March 24, 2006
Let’s make it clear again. Bob McQuilkin [letter to the editor, posted March 21, 2006] states that none of us can claim “obedience to the Scriptures” in our lives, so we should all just get along, letting our lack of understanding of “same-sex commitments” be an opportunity for humility. Their sins, Mr. McQuilkin claims, are no worse than any others to which we are all prone. With that much I can agree. But that does not let same-sex practitioners off the hook, especially when it comes to seeking leadership positions within the church.
“What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” (Romans 6:1-3)
Living in obedience to the Scriptures does not mean that we will always and everywhere behave as the perfect image of the Son, who gave himself for us so that we might have forgiveness and life. It means that we will fully recognize that while we have been (are being) made new as God’s adopted children, we often fail our Lord by what we do and leave undone. Even so, he is faithful, just and gracious to forgive us our sins, setting our feet on the path once more, when we repent and confess those sins (1 John 1:9). True people of faith seek forgiveness through repentance in obedience to the Scriptures and the Lord who gave them to us.
Michael R. Warner The Presbyterian Church of Islip, NY