Bracketed comments were unnecessary
Posted Thursday, March 28, 2002
While I frequently find myself theologically and personally in disagreement with many of the positions of The Layman, I subscribe to the concept of generosity of heart and hospitality that continues to see us all as sisters and brothers in Christ. So, even when we are in opposition, respecting the journalistic integrity of a quote, for example, just seems to be fair and responsible.
For that reason, I was disappointed by Mr. Adams’ need to add a bracketed clarification in quoting the Anaconda resolution, referring to the “group of people” as [practicing homosexuals and adulterers]. This was unnecessary and uncharacteristic of what I believe to be your general journalistic standards. The fact that I disagree with his assessment and agree with the Anaconda position is beside the point.
Ray Bagnuolo White Plains, N.Y.
Clerk’s letters represented one-sided view
Posted Thursday, March 28, 2002
I am writing this note to The Layman because the PCUSA itself is not interested. Briefly, I am bewildered by the letters sent by Clifton Kirkpatrick, the stated clerk, on PCUSA letterhead, to the president of the U.S. and the prime minister of Israel during the recent intifada protesting the use of force by Israel in Palestine.
I don’t understand why Kirkpatrick sends such letters to these two heads of state, but none to those in charge of the many other countries that are much more violent, murderous and repressive than either the U.S. or Israel. No letters to the PLO, Saudi Arabia, China, Iraq, Cuba, Iran, Libya, Syria, or even to Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.
I have come to the sobering realization that these letters, the lack of others, and the unwillingness of the PCUSA hierarchy to address the issue can only mean that the stated clerk and/or those he represents in the PCUSA are fundamentally anti-Semitic. This is a real problem and has devastated my confidence in the PCUSA.
Evan Janovitz
Divorce has its victims, not advocates
Posted Thursday, March 28, 2002
Mr. Leon K. Aulberts of Oswego writes a passionate letter trying to equate the position of divorced “infidelity” to the infidelity of homosexuals. I struggled with this problem for many years until I realized the following:
I have never met a divorced person who believed that divorce was a good and acceptable practice per se. I have never met a divorced person who said “yes I was divorced, I believe in divorce, and I am going to keep right on divorcing as long and as often as I want.”
I have never met a divorced person who felt it should be taught in school that divorcing was an approved and honorable alternate to committed marriage.
I have seldom met a divorced person who did not feel that the divorce was a regrettable necessity, not a worthy option. In fact, I know few who would not freely confess that it was a sin, and one they repented of.
Most of all I have never heard of a divorced candidate for ordination who was happy to advocate divorce, and repeated divorce, as a practice acceptable to God.
All of us, ordained or lay, are sinners. The disqualifying nature of the “Unrepentant, practicing homosexual” is the avowed intent to continue in the sinful practice and/or the denial of the sin itself.
Dick Underwood Urbana, Ill.
What part of ‘no’ is not understood?
Posted Thursday, March 28, 2002
As Ronald Reagan used to say, “There you go again.”
What part of “no” do people in some of our churches not understand? Our denomination has decided not to ordain practicing, non-celibate homosexuals and sexually-active unmarried heterosexuals. We have decided this again and again.
There are parts of The Constitution I may not like – but I have sworn in my ordination vows to uphold it in its entireity.
As to First Church, Anaconda, Mont., specifically, my recollection from the stated clerk of the General Assembly office is: One can pass all sorts of resolutions and statements provided ones does not act upon any of them in such a way as to violate the constitution. Fine. But if one crosses the line and does something openly and defiantly against the rules, discipline may follow.
I agree with your assessment: Where does this put the executive who also is the church’s co-pastor? By apparently encouraging a church in his presbytery to make such a statement – which can legitimately be made – is he violating his ordination vow to uphold the peace, unity and purity of the church, even though the congregation has not yet [apparently] actually ordained an ineligible person? And, also as you point out, how can one be wearing two hats in this kind of situation when, as a presbytery executive, he may be involved in a judicial process? Let us hope he also is not Yellowstone Presbytery’s stated clerk!
Dr. Stephen H. Janssen, pastor Eastminster Presbyterian Church, Marietta, Ga.
Since when is 3-1 a ‘narrow majority?’
Posted Thursday, March 28, 2002
The Anaconda Presbyterian Church’s letter referred to “a narrow majority” who opposed the ordaining of homosexuals and blessing of homosexual marriages. I would hardly call a 3 to 1 defeat a “narrow” majority.
Jack Kime Illinois
Officers are called to a higher standard
Posted Thursday, March 28, 2002
The Rev. Paul Peterson [the executive of the Yellowstone Presbytery and pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Anaconda, Mont.] says “categorically denying a group of people the right to hold office … creates a two-tier system of membership” as though that would be unnecessarily divisive.
My understanding of St. Paul’s instruction to the church is that ordained leadership is called to a higher standard of character and ability that not every member will be able to meet. Further, ministers and elders take a solemn vow to receive and adopt constitutional standards of Reformed doctrine and practice, again a “tighter” criterion than is required for membership. My first Presbyterian church was an OPC congregation that expected full subscription to the Westminster Confession as a test of membership, and I’m sure that’s not where Rev. Peterson wants to go.
So, by necessity, those eligible for ordained leadership will always be a smaller “tier” or “circle” than the general membership.
As a PCA ruling elder investigating affiliation with the PCUSA, I commend all of the leaders and members who have affirmed their stand for the Reformed truth and Presbyterian heritage by joining the Confessing Church movement. This past Monday night the Session of the PCUSA church that we have been attending adopted a Confessing Church resolution, which is a real encouragement to my wife and me as we as work though a decision to join this wonderful congregation. God bless all of you for the courage of your convictions to stand for what is right in the face of whatever opposition Satan will surely continue to stir up.
Will Billings Lebanon, Ohio
Thorough examination of candidates needed
Posted Thursday, March 28, 2002
I completely agree with Joe Rutherford on the need for exhaustive examination of all candidates for ordination or installation. The examining bodies must be satisfied as to Biblical and doctrinal orthodoxy.
Do these candidates truly believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of the Living God, infallible in matters of faith? Have they put their trust in Jesus Christ as their only hope of salvation, acknowledging that they are sinners and cannot by their own merits achieve salvation? Do their personal lives reflect the righteous standards of personal behaviour outlined in I Timothy 3: 1-12?
Will they swear to uphold the Constitution of our Church and be guided by the Book of Order? And, if they cannot in good conscience do so, then depart and leave us in peace?
We need to examine our candidates for ordination as ministers of Word and Sacrament to discern their depth of theological knowledge and commitment to Calvinist doctrines. We must ask if candidates believe that we all are totally depraved slaves to our sinful nature. Do they subscribe to unconditional election to salvation and acknowledge that faith comes by God’s grace alone? Do they accept the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement whereby God brings totally depraved but unconditionally elected individuals to himself without violating his own inexorable holiness?
Do they believe that divine grace is irresistible, mercifully changing the depraved soul? Finally, do our candidates for ordination believe that God’s purpose would fail if even one of Christ’s sheep were not brought and kept within the fold and that our persevering can only be accomplished through God’s perseverance?
That’s Calvinism and we are Presbyterians. To be sure, one does not have to be a Calvinist to be a Christian. To be saved, one must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as the only Son of the Living God and accept Him as Lord and Savior through repentance and faith. Do I expect to see Arminians in heaven? Yes I do. I simply do not want them in our pulpits and on our sessions – or for that matter – in our congregations other than as guests.
Accordingly, classes we conduct for new members should focus on what it means to be a Christian, what it means to be Reformed, what Presbyterians believe and what the Church is all about. We can be inclusive in matters of race, color or “worldly condition” – but not our creed. A theologically and doctrinally healthy membership will provide a pool from which to draw solid candidates for ordination and service to the church. “Unity in Diversity” is an oxymoronic concept, one inappropriate to any belief system and foolish to its core.
A number of years ago, one of my pastors in a large congregation in Montgomery, Ala., left for the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. He told me his examination for ordination in the EPC was exciting – filled with questions about theology, his understanding of Scripture, church history and doctrine. He compared it to his examination for ordination in the PCUSA some years before when a central issue concerned how he felt about gender-neutral language.
This denomination had better get serious about what we believe and whose we are, or the PCUSA will continue its current devolution into little more than a Sunday-morning liberal social club.
Earl H. Tilford Jr. East Main Presbyterian Church, Grove City, Pa.
For mission money, close Washington office
Posted Thursday, March 28, 2002
Want to find some more money for overseas missions?
Shut down the Washington office of the church. We don’t need a full-time lobbyist in Washington.
The church needs Washington contacts for only two reasons:
1. To scrutinize new legislation for changes that would directly affect the church’s mission, or finances. These changes are predominantly tax law related – either to deductibility of donations; foundation or trust taxation; or personal income tax changes that would affect the income of ministers and related staff. Surely, we can find a Presbyterian accountant or tax attorney who would volunteer to follow these developments. Besides, these issues are common to most religious denominations and we can consult with the Washington offices of those other churches.
2. To provide information on other pending legislation of interest to members. We have the Internet for that. This church should not be sacrificing missions for political activism at home.
Tom Taggart Athens, Ohio
Which is worse – schism or heresy?
Posted Thursday, March 28, 2002
After reading several of the news articles on The Layman Web site, I must ask the question: Which is more tolerable, heresy or schism?
J. C. Ryle had an insightful statement to make on this issue:
“Divisions and separation are most objectionable in religion. They weaken the cause of true Christianity. … But before we blame people for them, we must be careful that we lay the blame where it is most deserved. False doctrine and heresy are even worse than schism. If people separate themselves from teaching which is positively false and unscriptural, they ought to be praised rather than reproved. In such cases, separation is a virtue and not a sin… The old saying must never be forgotten, ‘He is the schismatic who causes the schism’… Controversy in religion is a hateful thing… But there is one thing which is even worse than controversy, and that is false doctrine, allowed, and permitted without protest or molestation.” Warnings to the Churches (London: Banner of Truth, 1967), p. 109-110; quoted in Murray, Iain, Evangelicalism Divided (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2000), p. 141; emphasis in original.
I am longing for a return to a Biblical inerrancy and authority.
Philip Sheppard, inquirer Beaufort, S.C.
Will officers enforce the constitution?
Posted Thursday, March 28, 2002
I can only imagine what sort of vote-counting the Yellowstone Presbytery has been subjected to if their executive presbyter views the affirmation of the Book of Order as having come about through a “narrow majority.”
Perhaps the only good news in his statement is that there are finally churches on the liberal side of the denomination willing to put their defiance out into public view.
Now comes the test: Will the denomination’s officers enforce the constitution or will they blink? Of course this could all be avoided if those who disagree with the provisions of the Book of Order would “peaceably withdraw.”
Donald D. Denton Jr., D.Min. Richmond, Va.
Church emphasizes gay-lesbian Christians
Posted Thursday, March 28, 2002
I picked up a brochure from First and Central Presbyterian Church in Wilmington, Del.
One whole panel of the trifold brochure is devoted to “Gay and Lesbian Christians.” One of the blurbs is as follows: Services of Commitment / First and Central Church celebrates holy unions and services of commitment for same sex couples.
Another blurb: A large Gay and Lesbian Community / At First and Central, gay and lesbian people are engaged in every aspect of the church’s life. You can be, too.
When the church’s former pastor died a few years ago, the obituary in the local paper said, “He is survived by his former wife (name) and son (name) and his life partner Julian.”
My comment to my wife was “I would far sooner join the Roman Catholic Church than be a Presbyterian at First and Central.” May God have mercy on the PCUSA, a great reformation of doctrine and life is long overdue!
Rev. Edd Cathey Wilmington, Del.
Anticipated loss of members alarming
Posted Friday, March 22, 2002
I am alarmed at the number of members Presbyterian leaders say we will lose this year: 45,000. While we lose the equivalent of a major congregation a week, the stated clerk writes a letter to a rogue congregation, in the most sufferable terms, praising them for fulfilling their mission to gays and lesbians.
When the Word of God is preached and homosexuals are brought to their knees in repentance, then the Church is fulfilling its proper mission toward homosexuals.
How can Clifton Kirkpatrick and Jack Rogers face themselves? Blame themselves? I doubt it. They would prefer to blame the “divisive” elements in the church who believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, that the Bible is the complete and authoritative Word of God and that we ought to live righteous lives in conformity to Scripture.
May I recommend immediate resignation as an honorable way to admit failure.
Earl H. Tilford Jr. East Main Presbyterian Church, Grove City, Pa.
Why not divert money to missions?
Posted Friday, March 22, 2002
Do you know how much money could be diverted to World Missions if the Washington Office and contributions to the World Council were stopped? The article was very disturbing.
Ray Welch Jasper, Ga.
G-6.106b applies to heterosexuals, too
Posted Friday, March 22, 2002
Now that G-6.0106b has so overwhelmingly been affirmed, it’s time for policy to become practice. We’ve heard much about the implications of this Book of Order ordination standard on practicing homosexuals. For practicing homosexuals, a line in the sand has been boldly drawn.
Meanwhile, here in the hinterland, what I haven’t heard being addressed are in implications of G-6.0106b on the myriad of divorced and remarried church officers who are daily failing to live “in fidelity within the covenant of marriage,” see Luke 16:18. Over the years, we Presbyterians have been ordaining and installing these “unfaithful” heterosexuals.
Where has the outcry been against this “disobedience to Scripture” and the rampant flaunting of our “historic standards?” Where has been the zeal exhibited by those concerned about “ordaining and/or installing” practicing homosexuals when it comes to “ordaining and/or installing” “unfaithful” divorced/remarried persons? I would assume divorced/remarried officers far outnumber those who are practicing homosexuals who are seeking ordination/installation. Where has been the zeal in our publications to discuss Scriptural/historic confessional standards position on the epidemic of “unfaithful” divorced/remarried persons who are our current church officers?
G-6.0106b is more than an article addressed just to practicing homosexuals. This article deals with every aspect of holiness in the lives of our church officers. For a denomination, which states that discipline is the third mark of the true church, we have become very selective of our targets for censure. Now that we’ve focused so strongly on “man and woman” in G-6.0106b, it’s time for us to address the rest of the standard and for church officers to be judged for all aspects of their Christian walk. “In obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic standards of the church” where else do we draw our lines in the sand?
Leon K. Aalberts Oswego, Ill.
When will the Norcrest Commission move on?
Posted Friday, March 22, 2002
The Findlay Evangelical Presbyterian Church is an exciting congregation. We have now moved from the Humane Society to a local elementary school to provide the needed Sunday school space. All programs are in full swing, attendance has increased (average approximately 450 weekly), and the congregation has been officially accepted by the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. These are exciting times for us. We praise and thank our awesome God and look to the future he has in store for us.
It appears as if Rev. Doug Nagel and the Norcrest Commission are struggling to forgive and move on. Recently, the open letter written to The Layman Online and read at the Feb. 5 Maumee Valley Presbytery meeting was sent to the former members of Norcrest who are now at the Findlay EPC. It is old news and what purpose does it serve except to be vindictive?
Rev. Doug Nagel’s letter is another sad chapter in the heavy-handed handling of the Norcrest Presbyterian Church and Pastor Borsay. His letter seems to be the Maumee Valley Presbytery’s effort to demonize Pastor Borsay and the former members of the Norcrest Church by distortion and misinformation. As a former elder of the Norcrest congregation and now an elder of the Findlay EPC, I must respond with the facts.
Fact 1 – The real issue is Jesus.
The real issue is Jesus and who do you say he is. Pastor Ben, the session and the majority of the congregation could not stay in a denomination who calls Jesus only “unique” and not the one and only savior and Lord. We make no judgments on the individuals or churches who want to stay in the PCUSA and continue to fight for renewal within the denomination. Our hope and prayers are with you for success.
Fact 2 – There was no emergency situation in the Norcrest Church.
Many of Rev. Nagel’s accusations are based on two listening sessions with the Norcrest congregation. He writes, “These conversations taken together seem to indicate a pattern of misinformation and partial information directed toward a desired outcome when the congregational vote was taken.” Fifteen people out of a membership of 417 attended those sessions. In other words, the expressed concerns of less than 4 percent of the congregation led the “Norcrest Administrative Commission to a unanimous conclusion that this was a clearly developing emergency situation that called for immediate, quick and decisive action.”
A timeline helps to understand the questionable nature of their actions. The listening sessions occurred on Jan. 6 and 13. The Norcrest Administrative Commission (NAC) declined an invitation to meet with the Norcrest Session on Jan.13 following the last listening session appointment to discuss any issues or questions. On Jan. 15, the NAC reported to the Maumee Valley Presbytery: “The Norcrest Administrative Commission is not recommending any action by the presbytery at this time. We are still assessing the situation and considering our options. We anticipate bringing recommendations for actions to the March presbytery meeting.” On Jan. 18, the NAC recommended to the Committee on Ministry to take emergency action. On Jan. 21, Pastor Borsay was suspended in the formal sense, fired in the practical sense. An explanation of what happened in those three days to elevate the situation to an “emergency” remains a mystery.
Fact 3 – The overwhelming majority of the Norcrest congregation was in favor of leaving the denomination.
Rev. Nagel writes that “there are major misconceptions regarding the vote on Dec. 2, 2001.” He argues that the 19 no votes plus the 187 who did not vote constitute a majority who desire to stay. The actual vote was 209 – 19 in favor of separation. The Norcrest elders reviewed the 187 who did not vote and placed them in categories such as moved but never transferred, active in another church, students and younger members who are out of state, folks who are ill or shut-in, etc. The Norcrest Administrative Committee was informed of our review. They chose to ignore the real picture. The real picture, however, was evident, on the first Sunday after Pastor Borsay was “locked” out: 517 people worshipped with him while a handful of members remained at Norcrest.
Fact 4 – The Norcrest Church was open in its communications.
All of the congregational discussions and informational sessions held by the Norcrest Church leadership were public and open. Contrary to Rev. Nagel’s letter, a member of the NAC received all congregational correspondence, church newsletters and even attended the congregational discussion session held in the summer of 2001. Our request for dismissal should not have been a surprise to the NAC or the presbytery. It should also be noted that the NAC took action without ever meeting with the Norcrest session. Several invitations were declined.
Fact 5 – The Book of Order does not empower the Committee on Ministry to unilaterally dissolve the pastoral relationship with a local congregation.
The Book of Order provisions cited by Rev. Nagel are either the express responsibility of the presbytery or subject to working with the congregation and/or the session. Neither the congregation nor the session was party to the COM’s action. And the presbytery was asked to act on what was done only after the deed. The Norcrest session asked Rev. Nagel, who was acting as moderator at their Jan. 22 meeting, to explain the COM’s action. His only explanations were using G-11.05.02i and the opinion that the church was in “schism”. His other supporting “evidence” cited in his letter was not communicated to the session. Moreover, Pastor Borsay’s “trial” and “removal” was conducted without any adherence to the Book of Discipline, in particular the right of due process.
Fact 6 – Pastor Borsay was not responsible for a list of “after the event” deeds.
Rev. Nagel’s discussion of missing files, etc. is blatantly prejudiced and irrelevant to what actually transpired.
Fact 7 – Pastor Borsay was never informed of other allegations brought up by Rev. Nagel.
For example, the lack of recorded infant baptisms was never a charge brought to the attention of Pastor Borsay. That and other allegations were not heard until the Feb. 5 meeting of presbytery.
Fact 8 – The Maumee Valley Presbytery’s treatment of Pastor Borsay was cold, contemptuous and punitive.
Rev. Nagel states that the “COM and the presbytery have not sought to be punitive toward Mr. Borsay.”
On Jan. 21, 2002, Pastor Borsay was publicly humiliated by having his personal belongings packed up by the COM and loaded on a van, while his keys were taken and he was declared a trespasser if he would return to the property. Since that date, no one from the presbytery has even in an official capacity spoken to Pastor Borsay as to his personal welfare or the welfare of his family. No one has advised him of his status. No one has spoken to him as to his income or benefits or rights. At the Feb. 5 meeting of the Maumee Valley Presbytery, no officer of the presbyter was even prepared to speak with authority as to Pastor Borsay’s continuing relation to the presbytery, including vacation pay, continuing education pay, severance benefits, insurance, pension, etc. After the vote to dissolve Pastor Borsay’s relationship to the Norcrest Church, he walked out of the building knowing very little about the presbytery’s intentions in the future. It has since been learned that even his earned vacation pay has been denied. In addition, after the Norcrest session resigned in writing, they received a letter stating that their office, ordination and membership had been revoked effective prior to their resignation. I would hate to see the Muamee Valley Presbytery in punitive mode.
Fact 9 – The Bureaucracy comes first.
Throughout the entire process I have observed a tragic display of politics and power aimed at the preservation of the bureaucratic union of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. One may argue that the issue is not theological, that it’s not a matter of evangelical versus liberal. The truth is Norcrest and Pastor Borsay went through fire because of strong biblical convictions, so strong that we felt the Holy Spirit leading us out of the denomination. Many liberal pastors and churches are denominational loyalists because they are able to openly defy the constitutional standards, the Book of Order and the Scriptures. While the Presbyterian Church (USA) bends over backwards to accommodate and tolerate what is truly a clear and present danger to the denomination and the Body of Christ. Meanwhile a pastor and congregation are hammered and nailed because they peacefully, decently and in order asked to be dismissed to another reformed body.
I pray that the healing can begin and there are no further negative actions taken by the Maumee Valley Presbytery towards the Findlay Evangelical Presbyterian Church. I hope that there are no more reasons to compel me to write another letter regarding this matter. I urge Rev. Doug Nagel and the Norcrest Commission to concentrate their efforts on the needs of the small group remaining at Norcrest Presbyterian Church.
Greg Jewett Elder, Findlay Evangelical Presbyterian Church