Committee should let yes be yes, and no be no
Posted Monday, September 28, 2009
I appreciated the article on the marriage committee’s apparent impasse. About the state of affairs: Am I surprised?
I thought that Christian leaders are supposed to be most concerned about discerning God’s will, not about coming to some unachievable social consensus. Truth and righteousness should always trump consensus as a goal. Why doesn’t the expensive special committee just vote and be done with it? One side will be the majority and the other side will be the minority. Both can use their best efforts to produce the two reports, and General Assembly can then deal with the finest rationale for either the majority or the minority report. Clarity, precision and integrity can mark both reports. Give us a clear choice and a reasonable rationale, not some masterful avoidance of the main issue!
Logically one just can’t have consensus between A and Not A. “Sometimes A” or “Partial A” or “Mushy, Obscured A” just doesn’t cut it, and yet that is what we seem to think is necessary for a committee report. Please, committee, just let your yes be yes and your no be no. Quit dancing around with the obvious: You can’t have it both ways. Choose this day whom you will serve: God or a socio-political constituency.
And in terms of Layman journalism, I really appreciated the $60K sidebar about what could have been done with the money the special committee is costing. If only General Assembly commissioners would have such stark contrasts in front of them every time they attempt to sidestep a difficult decision by ordering up yet one more costly committee expected to arrive at some painless consensus that is, in reality, impossible to achieve!
There is something confusing in the sidebar numbers, however. If it costs $51,110 per missionary per year, it would cost an additional $1,533,300 per year to send out 30 more missionaries – an admirable task. However, why is it that the denomination “is raising $8 million in funds to support the growth in mission work” that costs only $1.5 million? James D. Berkley Bethel Presbyterian Church, Seattle, Wash.
Committee’s middle ground brings optimism
Posted Monday, September 28, 2009
I was not surprised by the preliminary findings of the PCUSA committee regarding same-sex marriage or same-sex unions. However, unlike some fellow progressives, I find much optimism in this committee taking a middle ground. For the fact is there has been some notion some have that even talking about same-sex unions amounts to downright depravity and maybe even blasphemy. These are certain persons that like the “good old days” (how good were those?) and they think that is where the PCUSA needs to go back to. But throughout the years we are not surprised by the PCUSA, which continues to keep an open mind about these type of issues. In other words showing mutual forbearance.
The fact is that progressives lose nothing in these types of debates. For example, same-sex marriage (or same-sex unions) is not widespread in the PCUSA or widely sanctioned. The notion that unions between the persons of the opposite sex are the only unions acceptable before God by certain conservatives continues to lose ground in the PCUSA. The progressives gain ground since their views haven’t been widely sanctioned in the first place by the PCUSA and they aren’t being told to shut up. Rather the PCUSA still wants to let the progressives talk until the end of days it seems to me (via mutual forbearance).
Regarding your article by Edward Terry reporting this I wish to point out a statement that is incorrect. His article states: “Previous attempts in the PCUSA to sanction same-sex marriage and the ordination of homosexuals have been unsuccessful.”
First of all, the ordination of homosexuals has never been banned in the PCUSA. Rather it has been the so-called homosexual activity that was at issue although I still, as a homosexual in the PCUSA, have yet to figure out what that really means. And fortunately I, as a homosexual, have been ordained in the PCUSA as a deacon and it has never been an issue for many years. So I and others are examples of success in the PCUSA of attempts of the ordination of homosexuals.
Also the PCUSA allows relationships to be blessed. These relationships include persons who may happen to be of the same-sex and married. So if the PCUSA allows this type of blessing, how can anyone claim same-sex marriage has not been successfully sanctioned in the PCUSA?
Yours in Christ,
Earl C. Apel, deacon Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church, Cincinnati, Ohio
It’s time to move on
Posted Monday, September 28, 2009
My gosh and golly, the committee did not reach a consensus on this non-issue. What a surprise! Do they have a Bible handy, can they read? There is no “changing nature of civil marriage” as purported, except in secular society. There is no such thing as same-sex marriage except in secular society. That’s an oxymoron and it’s offensive to the Gospel. You may call it a civil union or a same-gender partnership, but whatever, if it is not the marriage between a man and a woman, then it is by Biblical definition, SIN! You may slice it and dice and alibi for it in any manner you may choose. Why does the PCUSA need to have a “position on marriage?” It is well defined in the Bible. Aren’t we negotiating settled matters here? Why do we need more input – why do we need more time for the discernment of God’s will? Jesus spoke clearly in Matt. 19:4-6. How can that be misconstrued or misunderstood except as to further our own wisdom in believing that somehow, Jesus got it wrong. Let’s move on to the vital issues facing the PCUSA. Why in the world are we spending time on these things when the sidebar items shown in the Layman article are places where the estimated $60,000 would be much better spent for the work of God’s kingdom. The Outreach Foundation has it right – it’s MISSION, MISSION, MISSION!!
The church must always welcome people in these non-marital types of relationships and, without condemnation, love them as Jesus would. But, there is no Biblical mandate to condone or tolerate activity that is clearly anti-Scriptural or compromise God’s Word in the name of inclusiveness or not offending anybody. We may even exercise our “mutual tolerance and forbearance” and agree to disagree, but it’s time to stop dwelling on extraneous matters and get to work. Consensus was reached 2,000 years ago when God gave us His Word and then Himself.
Richard B. (Dick) Miller Harrisonburg, Va.
The Church shouldn’t take sides in political debate
Posted Friday, September 25, 2009
In matters where the church is tempted to give an opinion in a political debate, it is often helpful to look at Chapter XXXI of The Westminster Confession of Faith:
“Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.” – WCF, Chapter XXXI, IV
This is a good reminder to us. If the Bible is our only infallible rule of faith and practice, then it is certainly our duty to express what the Bible says on an issue, and to use the Bible “for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). However, if the Bible is silent on an issue, then we should be silent on that issue as well.
If a church, a church body, or a representative acting on behalf of the church, speaks out on a political issue, the church puts itself in danger of being perceived as a puppet of someone else’s political agenda. The church is not a political body. The church is not a lobbying body. Therefore, the church (or any of its representatives) should not publicly take sides in the current health care debate.
Kevin T. Smith Mechanicsville, Va.
Layman seems ignorant of health care issue
Posted Friday, September 25, 2009
RE: A Biblical view of universal health care
“Among the most troubling provisions of the proposed plan is rationing. A federal health agency would determine ‘who’ gets to be at the front of the line”
We already have health care rationing by private for profit insurance companies that do so in many ways. Those not aware of this must either have “gold plated” policies or are blind to reality.
RE: Health Care Reform: When ‘rights’ are wrong
Tax-payer funded health insurance that covers abortions is nothing new. All federal employees and active military, all of whom are paid by taxpayers, have long been able to choose health insurance that covers abortions. Neither former President George W. Bush nor the Republicans when they controlled all three branches of government mentioned this, let alone did anything to curtail it. Where was The Layman back then? Probably ignorant that this existed, as it seems to be now.
Peace. Steve Wintermute
Scripture already has decided the question
Posted Friday, September 25, 2009
Here is my response to (Rev. Clark’s – Sept. 23) “one sentence reply” to the committee: I understand forbearance to be “1. refraining from something; 2. forbearing conduct or quality, patient endurance, self-control; 3. An abstention from the enforcement of a right.”
Judging from the tone of your letter, I presume you agree. I begin my questions to you with this: What rights can you name that are unlimited? Speech? Assembly? Pretty much every enumerated right that you enjoy as a citizen is, in some manner, limited. Skipping to your last sentence, apparently you believe that marriage is a right. You say: “…liberty is imperative. When everyone is free to marry or not marry – then we can talk about mutual forbearance.” At least be honest. Everyone is free to marry – or not. The limitations fall in the line of what is marriage. Scripture defines that for us.
“It is not possible for someone to exercise forbearance against their oppressor.” Even if I grant the point – and I think I may – then you must identify the oppressor. Is it a person? Is it a denomination? Name the bad guy.
“I realize that probably sounded harsh.” Oh, I don’t know. Let us see, what was your linguistic choice? Oh yes: oppressor, tyranny, cowardly. I would say not so much “harsh” as an easy appeal to cheap emotionalism.
“The committee is absolutely right about the importance of universal submission to Christ.” I haven’t met many progressives who understand that in the world of orthodox Christian belief and practice this includes submission to the authority of the Word of God.
“I’m not surprised by the report in the slightest. Like the PUP report before it, this committee has chosen, admirably, to go down the path of understanding and fellowship rather than arriving at conclusions.” I would go so far as to say that it was just as big a waste of valuable resources and may in the long run be just as destructive as was the TTFPUP.
This was a non-starter in my world. I don’t care what the committee did. I don’t care what they decided. This question was decided for me in Scripture. Irrespective of what the policy wonks force down the Church’s throat next, where I serve, marriage will be between one man and one woman. Nothing else. Rev. Jim Yearsley
Reluctant to donate in the future
Posted Friday, September 25, 2009
ACORN is another example of the lying and thievery that has been going on for years under the name of mission work that God-loving Christians innocently contributed to. I believe the (PCUSA) has been lacking in making sure the funds allotted for certain projects actually reach the people intended for. We will be reluctant in future to donate to projects close to our hearts, wondering how and whom our hard-earned money is helping. Lord, come quickly.
Rose Armendariz
PCUSA’s activism a disservice
Posted Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Whether partisan politics or support of ACORN, the PCUSA does itself a disservice by its social activism. Yet, it can’t help itself. We have leaders and the temptation to co-opt the numerical power of the organization for their personal use is just irresistible.
This is compounded by their skill. If you can use Scripture to support abortion and homosexuality it is a simple task to be for or against almost anything. Inevitably, the entire denomination finds itself travelling some pretty weird roads with some strange companions.
It’s a little like fleas on a dog. The fleas don’t kill the dog, they are just an irritation. And the dog has no way to rid himself of the fleas.
Of course, unlike the dog, we could rid ourselves of the fleas.
John Cowan Cartersville, Ga.
A response to the preliminary report on Christian marriage and civil unions
Posted Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Here is my one sentence reply to the committee: Mutual forbearance is only possible or meaningful in the absence of coercion.
It is not possible for someone to exercise forbearance against their oppressor. That is submission to tyranny. When we have a situation where those who oppose same-gender marriage are free to abstain, and those who favor it are free to perform or enter into same-gender marriages then a call to mutual forbearance would be both appropriate and feasible. Until then it is a cowardly appeal to the status quo.
I realize that probably sounded harsh. I was not privy to the work of the committee. I know one of the committee members, Rev. Derrick Weston, and admire him a great deal. Furthermore, the report contains much that is valuable – the overview of the history and legal situation of marriage, as well as the admirable attempt to state a variety of viewpoints impartially. Ultimately, though, rather than making the substance of their conclusion about civil unions or marriage it is an emotional appeal to unity.
The committee is absolutely right about the importance of universal submission to Christ. Right about the need for respect and civility in our dialogue. These to me are obvious truths that bear frequent repeating, but don’t actually impinge on the core debate, which is whether we will permit our clergy to perform same-gendered marriages or our members to enter into them. The conclusion is a non-conclusion.
As a progressive I understand the appeal, and sense the sage nodding of heads, behind the idea of living in the tension, of accepting that there are no easy solutions, of agreeing to disagree. But that obscures the fact that the two sides are not playing on equal footing here. At present there is no liberty. The progressive side is bound coercively to play according to conservative beliefs the entire time we are in this season of discernment and prayer. This is no “mutual” forbearance at all. One side must forbear while the other is content with the status quo.
I’m not surprised by the report in the slightest. Like the PUP report before it, this committee has chosen, admirably, to go down the path of understanding and fellowship rather than arriving at conclusions. I have no doubt it was a fruitful season for the members of the committee of growing in affection for one another. Maybe we should all just get on committees and talk about these things face to face so we can all grow in respect and love. But we probably shouldn’t expect anything to come out of these committees which looks anything like a decision. The stalemate is deep and lasting (for now).
Which is why liberty is imperative. When everyone is free to marry or not marry – then we can talk about mutual forbearance.
Rev. Aric Clark
Continue to alert believers about the challenges facing society
Posted Wednesday, September 23, 2009
It seems that the identified effort of public health has skidded to a halt.
My mother took an advanced degree in public health in the 1920s at Western Reserve (now Case Western), Cleveland. At that time the philosophy was based on Christ’s words when He had been anointed with expensive ointment. The disciples thought the proceeds should have gone to the poor. Christ replied, “The poor you’ll always have with you.” Please see Matthew 26:7-12, Mark 14:3-8, and John 12:1 -8.
In that training for public health they did identify “the poor,” and provided care and treatment for them. It seems a similar approach might help today, and it wouldn’t dilute the care for everyone else.
Further I have never heard a sermon using any of these three references, and they seem most apropos at this time in our country and in the world.
Keep up the good work of alerting believers about the challenges facing society today.
Margaret W. Spangler Tacoma, Wash.
High-handed sin
Posted Wednesday, September 23, 2009
As a Presbyterian elder, I apologize for the distorted interpretation of scripture and use of rhetorical device by Parker Williamson, a minister of Word and Sacrament, in his article “Health Care Reform: When ‘rights’ are wrong.”
First, he states it is theologically erroneous to expect a people of largesse to provide a right to good health care because that is the same as a right to good health. He states since we all die (Ecclesiastes 3:2) that expectation is clearly false. The high-handedness of this distortion is self-evident.
Rev. Williamson then states by rhetorical question that only those who consciously seek help and are not pursuing intentional (high-handed) sin should be helped. He uses Christ’s actions in healing some of the sick rather than all of the sick as a Divine directive for this.
He continues to state (by rhetorical question) that we are not obliged to help those [high-handed sinners] who are obese, heavy smokers, drug and alcohol addicts and people in a homosexual lifestyle who suffer from sexually transmitted diseases that “do not want to be healed.” His clear message is that Christians have no obligation to help those people engaged in intentional sin.
It would seem to me that gluttony and addiction to nicotine, narcotics and alcohol are quite similar to a lot of other “uncontrollable” sins such as greed, envy and self-satisfaction. Perhaps we should acknowledge in our own salvation that all of us will sin, repeatedly and terribly without end and are therefore in no position to condemn.
Williamson also states health care is not a theological question but a methodological one. Regrettably he ignored Christ’s relevant teaching in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-38) wherein Christ clearly states the nature of Christian hospitality is offering unconditional love.
The difficult theological message from this parable to the wealthy, religious and all of us is “stop whatever else you are doing, tend to the wounds of the person in need, find them a place to stay, spend your money to pay the innkeeper, and modify your return trip to check up on how the person is healing and pay any more debts due the innkeeper.”
Regardless of his political opinion that he is welcome to hold, perhaps Rev. Williamson would benefit from quiet contemplation of two theological realities of his words: 1) the high handedness of using the sin as a basis to withhold help to the sinner; and 2) how many sinners he drives from the feet of Christ by withholding a helping hand and condemning the sinner for their sin in Christ’s name.
Henry Paris, elder Northside Presbyterian Church, Chattanooga, Tenn.
Liberal judges have no place in our jurisprudence
Posted Monday, September 21, 2009
Where does this judge get off making such a decision? This is an ecclesiastical matter. Courts have already ruled in favor of presbytery’s rights in these matters. This is just a judge’s sentimental ruling based on her beliefs that will have nothing to do with the law. Liberal judges have no place in our jurisprudence! Rev. Irvin Porter
It’s better to say ‘go with God,’ than to say ‘we are taking over’
Posted Monday, September 21, 2009
It is about time that someone has at least made a step to stop this insane policy of running congregations out of their churches. I say “thank you” to Judge Bates. I personally see no benefit in the Presbyterian Church (USA) taking over churches whose congregations disagree with the policies of denomination and choose to leave it.
As Christians, would it not be better to say “go with God,” than to say “we are taking over, this administrative committee will run your affairs and we have control of your property.”
Elder Thomas Cooper Corinth Presbyterian Church, Dayton, Ohio
It’s unethical to oppose health care reform without offering an answer
Posted Monday, September 21, 2009
Your articles about health care in the September issue were disappointing to me as a PCUSA evangelical who has worked long and hard to preserve our Reformed heritage and integrity – including our current standards of ordination.
I served on the adjunct faculty at Fuller Seminary for 25 years, taught (among other things) biomedical ethics, and served on the bioethical advisory committees of two medical centers in California. Besides my Ph.D. in ethics (Princeton Seminary), I have an M.A. in clinical psychology from Fuller and did part of my training at the Los Angeles County/U.S.C. Medical Center in Los Angeles. Encountering ethical and legal issues by the score, advising on critical cases, helping to shape hospital protocols, and providing clinical services the poorest in L.A. have made me aware of some of the realities of health care in the U.S.A.
No charitable efforts by churches or other organizations can possibly meet the actual health care needs of the millions of our uninsured and underinsured fellow citizens. Only a structured, predictable, and properly managed system of care can meet these urgent needs. Our present system of health care insurance is rife with unethical practices (from some of which I have suffered myself), which make it problematical even for those who have relatively good coverage.
Legislative correction is the only solution that will be adequate to the realities and the scale of the problem. And the failure to meet the needs of huge numbers of Americans has persisted for at least the hundred years since President Theodore Roosevelt first proposed a national program of health care.
Each year brings countless avoidable medical tragedies. It is, in my view, unethical and Biblically irresponsible to caricature and oppose the current efforts without a truly substantial proposal to meet those needs in another way. I can tell you without fear of contradiction that no such substantial substitute proposal has been formally made in the U.S. Congress to this date.
I am also disappointed at the manner of your reporting. Your heading “Obama rallies ‘Religious Left’” is attributed to “many political observers” (unnamed). Many thousands of evangelicals participated in that conference call. (Please see the accurate reporting in Sojourners.) As a long time friend of The Layman, I am sorry to see such misleading journalism. And as a long time reader and admirer of the writings of Stephen Brown, I am sorry to see claims written in italics (as if certainly factual) that I know to be incorrect. And they have been included without footnote or other attribution. I could go on.
Your September issue is so helpful in many ways. But I long to see a higher standard of journalism than that evidenced by your articles on health care.
Rev. Richard L. Spencer
There’s a difference between socialized medicine, health care reform
Posted Monday, September 21, 2009
This is in response to the letter, “I cannot believe that the Bible is against health care reform.”
There is definitely a need for health care reform, but there is certainly no such thing as a fundamental human right to socialized medicine.
There is a real difference in both the approach and the remedy.
David Wood Atlanta, Ga.