Do not compromise, but make a clean break
Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012
The theological and polity calisthenics described by the attempt to bridge the gap between the Fellowship of Presbyterians, the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the Evangelical Covenant of Presbyterians, reminded me immediately Lot’s wife, who left Sodom and Gomorrah, but couldn’t help but look back. The Lord’s command was to leave and not turn around. In other words: Do not compromise with or long for the comforts of immorality, but make a clean break. Singleton’s description of this new relationship of “differentiation without separation” sounds dangerously similar and ridiculously muddled.
Singleton described one of the benefits of a PCUSA congregation joining the Fellowship as “differentiation without separation.”
He said, “Sometimes you need to be able to say, ‘Yes, I’m a part of the PCUSA but I’m also a part of this movement within it that is different.’”
Jefferis Peterson
Another breakaway mini-denomination
Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012
I can appreciate that the architects of the new Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians (ECO) are sincere brothers and sisters in the Lord who have put many hours work and love and prayer into bringing it all about. In so doing, I’m sure they have sent a message to the Presbyterian Church (USA) home office in Louisville that is loud and clear.
But I cannot see why in the world we need yet another little breakaway Presbyterian denomination, when already there is the PCA, the EPC, the OPC and the ARP, and something called the Evangelical Covenant Church. Apparently the idea was to carry forward the evangelical distinctive of the above denominations, while at the same time carrying forward some PCUSA features, such as the full Book of Confessions and anxiety about women having sufficient opportunity for ministry. It also seems they envisioned having union churches and presbyteries, and cordial relations with the PCUSA. It seems as if they want to leave Egypt, but not go too far.
The problem is, and this was predictable, the PCUSA looks upon this new configuration with alarm. So in the end, what you end up with is yet another breakaway mini-denomination that will maybe max out at about 20,000 members. Let’s hope it has cordial relations with the EPC, ARP, etc.
Larry Brown African Bible College, Lilongwe, Malawi
FOP and ECO are a ‘little lukewarm’
Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012
There is something a little lukewarm about the Fellowship of Presbyterians and the Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians (ECO). One hopes for the best but as I was trying to remember what the letters stood for, Failure of Presbyterians and Evangelical Cop Out kept coming to mind.
John Cowan Cartersville, Ga.
Hope that outreach to Hispanic community is taken seriously by FOP
Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2012
I agree with Larry Brown’s observation of the Fellowship of Presbyterians not even mentioning foregoing missions (see letter below). Neither so I see anything about reaching out to the fastest ethnic group in the country: the Hispanics/Latinio community. In the PCUSA, these are among the first to be dropped from budgets when things get tight (churches, presbyteries and seminaries are good examples). Now I see that they are not even taken into consideration by the FOP and I saw no effort made to invite them to this or other events even though in their great majority they would consider themselves evangelicals. I pray that the challenge to reach out to this Hispanic community will be taken seriously in the near future.
Rev. Dr. Eriberto (Eddie) Soto Charleston, S.C.
The best approach to health benefits are Health Savings Accounts
Posted Monday, January 23, 2012
The ECO is missing out on the best approach to health benefits — Health Savings Accounts. HSAs are taking the benefits market by storm because they save money, encourage patient involvement, and offer members a chance to save for the future. They have only been available since 2004, but they already are seen as the most sensible approach available — especially for a group like this that is geographically dispersed.
Greg Scandlen Waynesboro, Pa.
Answering and asking questions
Posted Monday, January 23, 2012
I am writing in response to the letter of Jim Conner (1/9/12). First, I want to thank Conner for raising good questions, which I will try to answer. If I understand him correctly, Conner believes that the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy and “higher criticism” are on the opposite ends of a continuum of interpretive stances one can take toward the Bible. I disagree with this way of framing the problem. Inerrancy and “higher criticism” are not alternative interpretive methods. Inerrancy says nothing directly about how the Bible is to be interpreted, except that one must not interpret one part to mean something that contradicts another part or truths known by other means.
It is true that since the Reformation most Protestant inerrantists have advocated for grammatical-historical interpretation. Even though nearly all the communities we know of in Second Temple Judaism or early Christianity believed the Bible was inerrant, none of them, with the exception of the Antiochene Fathers, treated the grammatical-historical method as their controlling principle of interpretation. Most of them employed various forms of goal-oriented interpretation. In other words, they knew in advance what the text was supposed to say and used whatever exegetical methods would yield a result in keeping with their expectations. Consider Paul’s interpretation of Gen 12:7 and 13:5 in Galatians 3:16. In order to understand those texts as prophecies about Christ, Paul plays with the meaning of the word “seed/offspring” in a way that violates basic principles of grammatical-historical interpretation, such as using the meanings of words, phrases and clauses as the author and his immediate audience would most likely have understood them and interpreting words, phrases, and clauses in light of the surrounding context.
A successful practitioner of “higher criticism” will have to adopt a particular interpretive stance, but Mr. Conner is mistaken to suppose that it is at the opposite extreme from inerrancy. “Higher criticism” virtually requires one to use the grammatical-historical method! Unlike the early Christian community and modern Protestant inerrantists, the grammatical-historical method is a controlling principle in interpretation for “higher criticism.” For example, many inerrantists, using the grammatical-historical method, insist that the “days” in Genesis 1 are normal, 24-hour days. “Higher critics” heartily agree. Some of these inerrantists, using the grammatical-historical method, also insist that the chronology of the Old Testament requires that the creation event had to have taken place in the recent past, say in the last 6000 years. Again “higher critics” heartily agree. The obvious difference is that these inerrantists claim the Biblical texts are correct, whereas “higher critics” say the texts are incorrect. The continuum that inerrancy and “higher criticism” are on opposite ends of is the continuum of how much stock one puts in the claims of Biblical authors that Biblical texts always tell the truth.
Not that inerrantists and “higher critics” always agree on how to interpret Biblical texts. As I pointed out in my exchanges with Loren Golden, inerrantists often abandon the grammatical-historical method when the results of that method appear to lead to an interpretation that contradicts other Biblical texts or known facts. That is why large numbers of inerrantists interpret the “days” of Genesis 1 as epochs or the entire chapter as a “framework” that teaches nothing about the historical timeframe or order of events in creation. They are trying to reconcile the teaching of Genesis 1 with modern geology and biology. “Higher critics” object to this abandonment of the grammatical-historical method.
That leads me to answer Conner’s question about where I “draw the line for those who go off the deep end on the higher criticism side.” The grammatical-historical method is a wonderful tool for understanding what a text meant in its original context. It is no good at determining whether a text’s meaning is true or good. If you are going to investigate that — as opposed to just accepting it — you will need to use tools provided by the sciences. Therefore, it is not “extreme” to analyze the Bible on the basis of “western historical standards.” By and large the reason modern methods of historical inquiry are used is that they have been shown to work. They yield more accurate results than the alternatives. No doubt they can be improved upon. In the meantime we should use the best tools available to us.
Does Biblical criticism “go off the deep end?” There are certainly plenty of critical theories that have been proven incorrect. There are plenty more that go too far beyond the evidence available to us to command much confidence. Many things that appear in the Biblical text are not going to get a satisfactory explanation until we accumulate a lot more evidence about ancient cultures, languages, and history. I am willing to accept critical theories that can provide a consistent, concise explanation for all the available evidence without much conjecture.
Now I have a few questions for Conner. He refers to the “simplest most straightforward meaning” positively in his examples of converted Mormons and Christians in other parts of the world. But according to Conner this simple, straightforward reading has caused some to wander away from the faith. He advocates “layered” interpretation on the Jewish model. By “simplest most straightforward meaning” is he referring to the use of the grammatical-historical method — that’s what I mean when I use that kind of language — or is he referring to a naive reading that assumes the Biblical author is writing in the idiom of the reader’s culture and context? Precisely what kind of Jewish model does he have in mind? Could he provide an example of the difference between a straightforward and layered reading of a Biblical text? Perhaps he could do this with the texts I used in my letter of 11/17/2011. Jim Moore Worthington, Pa.
Applauds the motives of the Fellowship but yet still wonder…
Posted Friday, January 20, 2012
Editor:
I write as a former PCUSA elder who renounced jurisdiction when our church disaffiliated and as a currently ordained Ruling Elder in the EPC. I applaud the motives of the Fellowship of Presbyterians, but I have to wonder – if Martin Luther had possessed a similar mindset, would Presbyterians even exist?
Steve Jones
Elder, First EPC
Kokomo, Ind.
No need for another breakaway Presbyterian denomination
Posted Friday, January 20, 2012
I wish to second the opinion of J.T. Tate (1/18/12), who thinks there is no need for yet another breakaway Presbyterian denomination.
Apparently, the FOP is starting a new denomination because they don’t think the EPC goes far enough in ordaining women.
Yet all but one or two presbyteries in the EPC fully approve of women teaching elders.
If a church within those one or two presbyteries wishes to have a woman teaching elder, it is free to transfer to an adjoining presbytery that does allow women as teaching elders.
Will the new denomination set up quotas for women elders? If a candidate for ministry in the new denomination scruples over the issue of women elders, can he be approved?
I don’t see any mention in the FOP Web site about foreign missions. Nowadays, American churches are so focused on being “missional” (today’s new overused word meaning whatever one wishes it to mean) that they give no thought to the Great Commission and foreign missions.
How many little breakaway Presbyterian denominations will there be ultimately?
After awhile, it begins to remind you of Gulliver’s Travels and the controversy between the Big Endians and the Little Endians. The argument was over you should break your egg at the big end or the little end.
Seems to me that there will be no end to the formation of little breakaway denominations, because there will always be those who enjoy being a big fish in a little pond.
Larry Brown
African Bible College
Lilongwe, Malawi
PCUSA has been deeply divided for years
Posted Wednesday, January 18, 2012
In a time that is upbeat (the Covenanting Convention in Orlando) it is sad, if not maddening to receive the e-mail from The Presbyterian Outlook where the subject line says, “Breaking News — Will Orlando event divide PCUSA?”
This wrongfully presupposes the event will “divide” our denomination and that the Presbyterian Fellowship will be responsible.
The truth is, our denomination has been deeply divided for years. The subject line wrongfully places the onus and burden of a divide on the Presbyterian Fellowship event, rather than the denomination taking ownership of, or simply accepting that it is being divided because it’s divided.
The convention simply will provide a place where Presbyterians will be able to continue on down the same road and trajectory we’ve been on.
The denomination has left us (a full reversal). We will not be leaving them.
Those who covenant at the convention will be continuing on in faithfulness. That is what is exciting about the NRB. It’s about being faithful to the Christ who died for us and motivates. On to Orlando.
Rev. Steven L. Seng, pastor
First Wyoming United Presbyterian Church
Torrington, WY
Blogger has decided that the culture has won, so get along with it
Posted Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Tod Bolsinger keeps talking about adjusting to post-Christiandom.
Well, I’m not a post-Christian. He may want to compromise on Christ’s very words –“no one comes to the Father except by me” — but I can’t see how any real Christian can do so.
Bolsinger has decided that the culture has won so get along with it. I pity how little he has to live by.
Fred Edwards
Presbyterian ‘Split-P soup’ does not need any new ingredients
Posted Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Ok, so now they’re talking about forming a “New Reformed Body.” Why?
1) If you want to have female preachers, the EPC has gone out of its way to welcome you, as I’m sure the CRC and RCA would. Will the NRB mandate female ordination and ban complementarianism, like the PCUSA has for so long?
2) If you want to keep the full Book of Confessions, keep in mind the N(e)O-Orthodoxy of the Confession of 67 is hostile to a Biblical view of Scripture, and has promoted the prevalent mainline view of the Bible as a nice “record of man’s religious experiences” but full of myths and certainly not the written Word of God. Per this view, if we don’t like what’s in there, we can say “that part isn’t God’s word” and we get to make God in our image!
The Presbyterian “Split-P soup” does not need any new ingredients. Want to stay liberal in theology? I’m sure the PCUSA will allow minimal conservative scruples. Think the PCUSA is Babylon? The EPC, PCA, RCA, CRC, OPC, ARP, and numerous other denominations will be happy to have you join their ministry.
J.T. Tate
Asheville, N.C.
‘We live in sad days for the PCUSA’
Posted Thursday, January 12, 2012
The Rev. Kathi Busch and the former members of the Presbyterian Church of the Covenant of Wilmington, Del., decide to plant a new church on their own, but without presbytery oversight and approval, and she loses her ordination.
“Last week, Busch said the New Castle Presbytery removed her credentials after she renounced jurisdiction.”
And in the latest edition of Presbyterians Today (January/February 2012) the cover story reads “1001 new worshiping communities” while displaying a picture of a young adult or teen receiving full immersion baptism in a river in Texas.
What’s wrong with this picture? Everything! We live in sad days for the PCUSA.
Bob Merrill
Wishing for honest conversation about PCUSA’s divisions, free of threats and coercion
Posted Thursday, January 12, 2012
We can see a stark difference between underlying realities in the American Civil War and the Civil War currently underway in the PCUSA. In the War Between the States, there were only two options: remain as one nation, or become two separate nations. Member of the PCUSA are not limited to this either/or paradigm. Leaders of our denomination, however, appear unable or unwilling to accept this reality.
When my wife and I joined our current PCUSA congregation, we found ourselves surrounded by former Catholics, Southern Baptists, Methodists, etc. Those people joined our congregation because the preaching, youth programs, Sunday school and missions programs were in line with their beliefs and values. The “brand” of the church wasn’t important.
Today, Presbyterians (members of the PCUSA) are looking for places to worship which share their values and where their needs are met. If that doesn’t happen in a PCUSA church, they will go (and are going) elsewhere. Denominational leaders and the “Liberal” wing of our denomination are under the mistaken notion that they can dictate policy from on-high without a myriad of negative responses.
Some congregations will withhold per capita and withdraw support for denominational mission efforts. Some congregations will attempt to leave the denomination with their property. Some congregations will split over these issues, forming new congregations. And some congregations will shrink until there aren’t enough members left to keep the doors open. No amount of empty promises, coercion or threats can halt this tide. I wish that we, as a denomination, could have an open and honest conversation about our divisions free of threats and coercion.
I was at the Fellowship Gathering in Minneapolis. I heard our stated clerk and moderator speak. I neither trust nor believe what they told us then because of what they have said and done since that meeting.
Chuck Jeffries Concord, Calif.
How can the true Church of Christ ordain unrepentant individuals?
Posted Wednesday, January 11, 2012
I offer the following thoughts on ordination of clergy and lay leaders in our Presbyterian and other denominations:
Scriptural ordination constraints
Jesus promised “All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and remind you of everything I have said to you.” John 14:25-26
The Holy Spirit lead the Apostle Paul to write “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped in every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17
The Apostle Paul also wrote “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the Kingdom of God.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
How can the true Church of Christ ordain unrepentant individuals, including practicing homosexual persons, while professing it believes Scripture to be the Word of God? His Church must not be deceived.
Herbert W. Greydanus, elder Fremont Presbyterian Church, Sacramento, Calif.
Open letter is beautifully, truthfully stated
Posted Monday, January 9, 2012
This is as beautifully, truthfully stated as anything I have ever seen sent to The Layman. There may be other things you all have received that I haven’t seen for sure, but this is beyond excellent. Thank you, thank you for printing it on the website.
Connie Elliott