Couple disgusted by anti-American emails coming from PCUSA headquarters
Posted Thursday, July 28, 2005
We left our congregation a couple of years ago because of the wild activities of PCUSA. However, we have recently been getting e-mail from cgordon@ctr.pcusa.org that are decidedly anti-American. Only close friends have our e-mail address so I assume that the disgusting pastor that we left in the dust when we left must have turned our e-mail address over to this disgusting group. Would you have any knowledge of where this group gets their e-mail addresses or could know that we are Presbyterians.
Keep up the good work that you are doing. If we were younger – in our mid-seventies, we would be more active.
Gladys Lloyd Knoxville, Tenn.
No surprise in leader’s actions
Posted Thursday, July 28, 2005
Re: Moderator regrets his presence fueled Torrance church conflict
That’s Louisville. No surprise, I hope?
Richard Aubrey
Hollywood session has absolute freedom to conduct our own business
Posted Thursday, July 28, 2005
I must respectfully disagree with Michelle Lowe and Frankie Cotton regarding the AC vis a vis the session at FPCH. As an elder currently on session at Hollywood Presbyterian, I’ve not been required to make an oath of loyalty to the AC, nor have I felt our session has been intimidated by Katherine Hughes or the commission. Instead, I sat on a budget committee recently, chaired by one of our session members, in which we had absolute freedom to conduct our own business, make our own decisions and come to our own conclusions. The few AC members who were at the meetings asked thoughtful questions and made helpful suggestions, but in no way attempted to drive the process. The AC has not taken over nor threatened to dissolve our session. Voting members of presbytery did elect to give them the option of original jurisdiction, which they have not exercised, and have expressed that they do not wish to do so.
Sparky Jamison, elder Hollywood Presbyterian Church
We are called to serve Jesus, not the tyrants on all levels of the church hierarchy
Posted Thursday, July 28, 2005
I know exactly what Ms. Marta Ann Gardner, the stated clerk of the Hollywood First Presbyterian Church, is saying when she said that she felt like she’s being used as a pawn in the presbytery’s and synod’s game. The very same thing had happened to the Torrance First Presbyterian Church. The only difference, however, with our church is that we did not want to play their game anymore, and we did something about it. We bailed.
Our ecclesiastical system is designed to protect the innocent and help the weak. However, every time a handful of power mongers decides to unabashedly abuse the system to their own personal and capricious whim, there’s no stopping them. And we see too many good and decent ministers get hurt by them in the process, not to mention unwary congregations. All the remedial and disciplinary complaints are a joke. The clerks and officers would simply interpret them to their advantage. No wonder we are losing so many people. We are called to serve one Lord, that is Jesus Christ, not the little tyrants on all levels of the church hierarchy. Unless we do something about our present state of affairs on the national level, we are in for serious consequences.
Rev. Peter B. Min Torrance, Calif.
Girolimon sought to obey Great Commission at First Miami
Posted Thursday, July 28, 2005
Let it be known when God’s Law is disobeyed by anyone, God will judge, and in the case of the First Presbyterian Church of Miami, judgment for not reaching the masses in a difficult area of God’s creation.
Michael Girolimon, a former Presbyterian Church (USA) minister, may have not been always correct in his application of Biblical truth, but sought to give First Pres., a purpose for its existence by seeking to obey the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20. May the Body of Christ be blessed in Miami.
Louis S. Nowasielski
Stated clerks are wrong, but pastors are ‘wronger’
Posted Thursday, July 28, 2005
“Decently and in order” is the rug under which both denominational detritus and his Word get oh so carefully swept. The stated clerks can not read otherwise there would be no need to go to Louisville where the Office of Constitutional Services reads into the Book of Order more things than Horatio ever dreamed in his Philosophy. The stated clerks are wrong; wrong on the facts and wrong on the law. But the effected pastors are “wronger.”
We Presbyterians love to prate on about how Witherspoon as a founder used our model for our country. And look at his legacy: The Witherspoon Society and The Little House of Horrors on Witherspoon Street in Louisville. His legacy has been wrecked in the church by the Office of Constitutional Services and its handmaiden the GAPJC, just as his legacy has been wrecked in our federal (not national) through government by judiciary.
Andrew Jackson is alleged to have said in response to one of their wrongheaded decisions, the “the Supreme Court has made its decision; now let them carry it out.” We will never get out from under our judicial imperialism as a nation until the executive and legislative branches remember what our founders said – perhaps even including Witherspoon – about the appropriate role of the judicial branch of government.
Likewise, we will never get out from under every silly wastral edict from Louisville – and you know that neither the synod nor the presbytery clerks got their backing and their “backbone” from Louisville and its “unnamed source” – until persons like these two pastors worry more about his truth and their calling to it, than they do about their pension plans and health benefits. Just as this denomination is held together by pensions and property, so too are these pastors held to “go along” with patent error out of their fear of temporal rather than divine consequences. The stated clerks are wrong, but the subject pastors are “wronger.” The stated clerks are simply stupid or putting on a game face of it. The pastors are behaving venally to preserve “benefits.” And are the “wronger” for it.
Derek Simmons San Clemente, Calif.
Letter was a profound and heartfelt message
Posted Thursday, July 28, 2005
After reading the July 26 letter of James Logan Sr., all I can say is this: “AMEN! Preach it, Brother!” That is a profound and heartfelt message that says it all. Thank you, Jim!
James D. Berkley Bellevue, Wash.
Girolimon was a man of courage and conviction
Posted Thursday, July 28, 2005
Thank you for honoring Michael Girolimon, my friend and a faithful man of God with a great heart for the Great Commission, by noting his passing into glory. Michael Girolimon was a man of courage and conviction, who evoked tremendous loyalty from those whose lives were touched by God’s grace through his ministry at FPC Miami.
I stood in solidarity with Michael throughout the year that culminated in his renunciation of jurisdiction from a denomination he had embraced and served with imagination and love. I watched aghast in disbelief as fellow presbyters destroyed a colleague and the fruit of a ministry that was the specific mandate of the Church Information Form that drew him and PNC and congregation that called him to this position. And they did it, on the basis of unspecified and unproven allegations by anonymous and unnamed accusers who never brought their concerns to their session, because they didn’t like his style. (I remember one highly placed presbytery administrator piously telling me that she “preferred a gospel-driven church to a purpose-driven church.” I wanted to gag – since she is a promoter of the heretical, apostate and anti-gospel homosexual agenda in the PCUSA.)
It still makes me wonder what these presbyters thought it meant when they took a sacred vow before God to be “a friend among your colleagues in ministry, working with them, subject to the ordering of God’s Word and Spirit.” As a justice issue, may God requite them according to their works.
Michael Girolimon’s positive attitude throughout his struggle with leukemia, including a bone-marrow transplant, will long stand as a testimony of Christian faith. Michael is at peace now, in the presence of the God he loved and served. Please pray for his family, Rachel and John and Kim.
Rev. Bill Pawson Westminster Community Church , Canton, Ohio
It is better to be divided by the truth than to be united in error’
Posted Thursday, July 28, 2005
As a retired SBC minister, 40 years as pastor, I am refreshed by your work. I discovered the Web site and downloaded the article “Can Two Faiths Embrace One Future?” I have shared it with others here and want to encourage you.
One of our pastors, years ago now, said something like this: “It is better to be divided by the truth than to be united in error.” The initial reports from those who are seeking to keep two faiths under one umbrella need to understand this. Thank you for keeping the Biblical faith.
Dale Steele Burlington, N.C.
Compassion, mature judgment aren’t criteria for moderator’s job
Posted Thursday, July 28, 2005
Re: Moderator regrets his presence fueled Torrance church conflict
One is led to question what sort of person did the PCUSA elect as moderator of the General Assembly? Apparently compassion and mature judgment were ruled out as criteria. Is it any wonder we are in such a mess?
Pat Riggins First Presbyterian Church , Bloomington, Ind.
Instead of faithful solutions, leaders seek fatuous yet profitable solutions
Posted Thursday, July 28, 2005
I was saddened to read of the death of Mike Girolimon, but glad to know he is with the Lord. What a pity that the church and denomination Mike had once sought to serve is moving further and further away from Christ. There are many troubles in the PCUSA, and the refrain one hears from institutional loyalists up and down the line from presbyteries to G.A. is that they are committed to finding faithful and peaceable solutions. The truth is that they seek fatuous yet profitable solutions. In the end, as one evangelical congregation after another pays the extortion demanded to exit this wreck of a denomination, what will be left will be a financially wealthy and spiritually bankrupt fellowship of the foolish still proudly pronouncing the “blessings” of big-tent (read “anything goes”) theology, and connectionalism (which has in fact deteriorated into bondage).
(Mike was a graduate assistant in the church history department at Princeton Seminary in the early ’90s, who, I recall, led my classmates and me in some very interesting discussions on infamous 19th Century Presbyterian Church Court cases.)
Rest in peace, Mike. May you enjoy all the rewards promised to a faithful servant.
Jim Wilken First Presbyterian Church , Marion, N.C.
PCUSA and Islam have been ‘highjacked by fanatical radicals’
Posted Thursday, July 28, 2005
There seems to be a striking resemblance between the Presbyterian Church (USA) and Islam.
Both have been highjacked by fanatical radicals. The Koran is defiled by terrorist bombers who kill the innocent in the name of Allah. In the PCUSA, the Bible and the teaching of Jesus has been defiled by those who worship Sophia, promote same sex marriages, the ordination of homosexual church officers and advocates of partial birth abortion. Islam is hurt by the many Muslim clerics who remain mute and will not speak out against the violence. The PCUSA is hurt by the many pastors who will not speak out against such behavior and keep their congregations in the dark regarding what goes on in Louisville and the Washington Office. Anyone else notice the similarity?
Jack Vanderbleek, elder Northeast Presbyterian , St.Petersburg, Fla.
Draft prologue mouths empty words while failing to grasp that God rules
Posted Thursday, July 28, 2005
The draft prologue of the report of the Theological Task Force on the Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church (TTF) weakly admits that “it is important to affirm that salvation rests not in any merit of our own but in the sovereign love of God that has been made known in Jesus Christ. Moreover, we must remember that the truth of the Gospel rests on the power of God, not on the power of the church. Therefore, in addressing questions of pluralism, truth, and salvation, we must emphasize both the necessity and sufficiency of the grace by which God is for and with the world in Jesus Christ” (lines 86-91).
Yet, I find little acknowledgment that the God who is for and with the world and “for and with us in Jesus Christ” (line 32) is also over us and over the world. The TTF draft prologue mouths empty words that pledge allegiance to God’s sovereign love while failing to grasp the awesome and awful truth that God rules. The Sovereign Lord – Father, Son and Holy Spirit – occupies the throne of the universe in might and majesty.
The framers of this document “confess that Jesus Christ is Savior and Lord, who has broken the power of sin, death, and evil” (line 158-159). Armed with this good confession, they go on to press a further claim: “Living in expectation of God’s reign, we not only look to Jesus Christ as our Lord and the Lord of the Church but proclaim him to be the Lord of all. As a pilgrim people, we await the day when ‘every knee shall bend, in heaven and on earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:10-11)'” (lines 192-195). However, when set in the larger context of the draft prologue as a whole, these declarations ring hollow with unfulfilled hope; they are wooden swords that instill a bare hint of tiny confidence that we are Christian soldiers destined for victory under the command of the risen and ascended Lion of Judah. The joy of triumph finds no expression here, for the TTF draft prologue does not begin to fathom the fantastic and fearsome truth that Christ Jesus rides out even now “conquering and to conquer” (Revelation 5:5, 6:2). It is small wonder that, when reminded of their mandate, they despair the future.
After four years of talking things through together, TTF members find their only comfort and solace in the vision of remaining reliable emulators of our Lord’s sacrifice: “Because of the obedience of Jesus Christ, even unto death, we no longer define power as domination over others, for we experience strength made perfect in weakness (2 Corinthians 12:9; 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:13). Therefore we can no longer accept a hierarchical or patriarchal view of how divine power makes itself felt among us. Our relations to others are transformed and reoriented, because the love of God is not confined to the people of one religious perspective, or of one social or economic class, or of one race or ethnicity, or of one gender or gender orientation” (lines 102-108). This declaration demonstrates a recalcitrant refusal to recognize the tremendous and terrifying truth that the power and authority which Jesus Christ laid down in order take “the form of a servant” and to “humble himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross,” were taken up again with all potency and predominance when he raised up from the grave (Philippians 2:7-8). “For the kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in power” (1 Corinthians 4:20).
The Suffering Servant is the supreme, strong King over all creation and over all de-creation. Christ Jesus is the Almighty who saves and who judges. He is the Lamb and the Lion; the humble, donkey-riding itinerant and the resplendent, grand inquisitor mounted upon a white horse; the thorn-crowned Sacrifice and the diadem-covered Sovereign. Any who refuse to be conquered by him today will be crushed by him in that new day when heaven and earth pass away, but his word remains (Revelation 19:11-16, Matthew 24:35). “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
Those who define their Christian identity according to the parameters set out in this document are in grave danger of being swindled out of their eternal inheritance: life now in this earthly round and life forever in the kingdom of heaven; full, abundant, triumphant life.
Jim Henkel, NWI Endorsing Church pastor North Benton Presbyterian Church , North Benton, Ohio
It remains to be seen what homosexual acts PCUSA will call sin
Posted Thursday, July 28, 2005
I wish to share some thoughts regarding Mr. Logan’s response [letter to the editor, posted July 26, 2005] to my letter in response to his.
He states: “The righteous life is about taking the actions that we ought to take and abstaining from the actions that we should not take. It is about, in the power of God, intentionally rejecting temptations to sin. Romans 6:1 clearly declares “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means (KJV translates it ‘God forbid’) We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?”
Well, I must say I’m glad he quotes from the KJV as I personally like that translation unlike some liberal friends. Putting that aside, I don’t believe it is a good idea to sin for the heck of it. The question is what is sin when it comes to homosexuality? If certain homosexual acts aren’t sin, then one is not living in sin any longer. Of course, one is probably committing other acts of sin outside this arena. Of course, it remains to be seen what the PCUSA or anyone else in this denomination will say what qualifies as homosexual acts (or practices) that falls into that category of sin. Rather, we choose the more wishy-washy language, unlike the good old KJV that some will say is quite clear.
He also states: “The great debate in the mainline churches, but settled in the heavens, is about a certain group of persons who have a propensity to commit particular sins – homosexual acts.”
OK, it seems to be somewhat of a debate. But then what are homosexual acts? Of course the good old JKV does not use the word homosexual. So why use it in this debate? What is really being argued here when it comes to Scripture?
He shares a verse: “1Cor. 10:13; “No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.”
I couldn’t agree more. And I have truly found a way out in my own life circumstance just as others do. God is truly faithful.
He notes: “We do represent, to the world, the authenticity of the Word of God. We lay people can’t escape; we need to know what the Word says and conform our lives to it. Clergy are on a pedestal. They have been trained in the best theological schools in the world, they are called in the PCUSA to be ‘teaching elders.'” People expect that what they teach is true. They expect that what they do is right; is an example. They cannot escape and we must not allow them to get off lightly. Innocent lives look to them as “Mr. Jesus.”
Sorry, but I do not see any pastor in the PCUSA or any denomination as “Mr. Jesus.” There was only one “Mr. Jesus” who I seek to follow and has relevance in my life. Any pastor that would give the impression that he/she is “Mr/Ms Jesus” should cause great concern for any church body.
He notes: “It is troubling that Mr. Apel apparently places his trust in his own knowledge for the righteousness of his affirming of his homosexual identity. This is soul-endangering stuff. Proverbs 3:5-6; ‘Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not own your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him and he will make your paths straight.'”
Well, I don’t recall saying I put my own trust in myself, that is indeed quite scary, but for the record do trust the Lord with all my heart and try my best to not rely on my own understanding, hoping the Lord will make my paths straight (I don’t think that necessarily means not gay as opposed to straight in the sexuality debate, but who knows what others will think?).
He notes: “There is malicious intent when there is sex between people who are not married to each other being male and female. The malice is the intention to ignore God’s clear commands. Mr. Apel might well take his own advice and read the Bible. God told Moses clearly to speak to the rock. Moses ‘smote’ the rock and it cost him entrance into the promised land. Achan, son of Carmi took some of the devoted things and it brought God’s anger on the whole nation of Israel, causing a defeat of a superior Israel army, 36 men to lose their lives and a fiery death to himself. (Joshua 7:1-26). Ananias and Sapphira thought it reasonable to sell their property and bring part of the proceeds to the apostles feet as though they had given it all. It cost them their lives (Acts 5:1-11).”
Ok, I must admit I fail to see the relevance in these statements. In fact I was surprised. The accounts noted about Moses, Achan, Ananias and Sapphira does not seem to have much relevance to a debate about the homosexual question. But I will look into those readings to make sure.
He notes: “The problem is that some think that this question of sin is subject to debate. God has spoken through his prophets, judges and apostles calling certain acts sin. On the other side are men and women, proud of their pitiful few months (maybe years) of education, who challenge God’s Word to debate. His Word is settled in the heavens and it is dangerous to tamper with it.”
I disagree. For it is not a question of whether sin is to be ignored. Rather it is what acts we as humans based on our understanding of the Word and our walk as faithful disciples of Jesus consider to be sin.
But then the real answer in the end is truly simple and seems to be easily dismissed by so many. The true question in the end is whether we are being faithful disciples of Jesus?
I somehow expect Mr. Logan is in the end a faithful disciple as well as many in this forum, even though we don’t agree on certain things.
But I will offer another thought. If Mr. Logan and others think it is wrong to even debate this certain sin in the first place and everything is so clear, why write about it in the first place and why even have this forum? If everything is so black and white with our understanding of the Bible and God, why have debate or even encourage it? It would seem to me a more appropriate response in having such a belief would be to withdraw completely and have nothing to do with people who apparently are out of touch, lost, and basically heathens.
I get a little confused sometimes. Are people in this forum telling me I am a Christian by taking the time to listen to my own faith experience or is this just to promote a certain agenda?
Earl C. Apel, member Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church, Cincinnati, Ohio
If the question leads you toward a disagreeable answer, re-frame the question
Posted Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Like reader James Logan Sr., [letter to the editor, posted July 22, 2005] I was struck by a question posed in “DRAFT: The Issues Before the Task Force.” After outlining four fairly reasonable points of agreement on the matter of sexuality and ordination, the task force suggests that perhaps we have been asking the wrong question. “Many [members of the task force] believe that, instead of beginning with the question of ordination, it would be more profitable to frame the question differently: ‘How are baptized gay and lesbian persons in exclusive, covenanted relationships called to participate in the church in God’s gracious drama of creation, reconciliation and redemption?'” (lines 231-235)
Intentionally or not, the authors have employed a favorite tactic of the left in both theological and political discussions – if the question you’ve been asked leads you toward a disagreeable answer, re-frame the question. The question the task force offers is radically different from the one it proposes to abandon. It contains the assumption that in the Biblical context of their studies, there is such a thing as a “covenanted relationship” between same-gender couples.
Upon what covenant would such a relationship be based? To be sure, humans enter into all kinds of earthly arrangements based on mutual pledges. We make contracts, sign pre-nuptial agreements, accept deed restrictions on real property, form business partnerships, get engaged to marry and so on. We may refer to these mutual pledges as deals, obligations, or even covenants. But we don’t bring our contracts, pre-nups, deeds, partnership agreements and wedding engagements to the church to be recognized and blessed as relationships ordained by God.
When the task force refers to “gay and lesbian persons in exclusive, covenanted relationships” they are referring to relationships that have a sexual dimension. The only sexual “covenanted relationship” that the Bible ordains is marriage – a faithful, monogamous relationship between one man and one woman. Humans often form other kinds of sexual relationships and sometimes make utterly sincere promises to one another in the process. But these relationships and promises do not constitute a covenant in the Biblical sense.
The writers flirted with the notion of an alternate “covenanted relationship” when they made a passing reference to “liberal writers who believe that the full witness of Scripture supports the possibility of covenantal relationships between persons of the same gender”. (lines 163-165) Indeed, the re-framed question seems to suggest that “many” members of the task force have already accepted the “possibility” as a fact. Perhaps we can hope that, in writing its final draft, the task force will deal honestly and forthrightly with the questions it was asked and not re-frame them replete with hidden assumptions.
Steve Jones, elder Kokomo, Ind.