Heretics are seizing church property
Posted Thursday, January 31, 2002
I have just finished reading your online article from January concerning the firing of an Ohio pastor and the seizing of his congregation’s property by the presbytery.
I think that the Confessing Church Movement should hire some very good lawyers and start preparing to leave the PCUSA as a group. With size and good lawyers you have power in this society – without it, the heretics will seize our church properties one by one.
Grey Larison
Colonel hits nail on the head
Posted Monday, January 7, 2002
Col. Charles King hit several nails on the head. Jesus said, “the poor you will have with you always.” Unfortunately, the same can be said for war. I am a retired Navy commander and attended the Psychological Operations course at Col. Kings’ Special Forces School in Fort Bragg in the late ’60s.
I, too, am a Presbyterian who is acutely aware of how out of step our church leadership is from the grassroots of the denomination. Our denomination is obviously suffering from a baffling disconnect which was made obvious at the 2001 General Assembly.
The Commissioners elected as moderator, by a 60 percent vote, the only candidate who campaigned on a pro-homosexual agenda, then attempted to delete the chastity/fidelity portion of our ordination standards from the denomination’s Constitution – again by a 60 percent vote.
I want to believe that most General Assembly commissioners are sincere faithful people who vote their conscience, but as Col. King suggested, we live in a fallen world and it is possible that power politics has invaded our denomination. It is still possible that the vote of presbyteries will validate the majority vote of the General Assembly, but it appears they have acted against and without the support of the grassroots of the PCUSA.
Larry Froistad Rapid City, S.D.
What PCUSA says is irrelevant
Posted Monday, January 7, 2002
Colonel King’s letter is thoughtful, well-phrased and comprehensive. However, as a professional soldier, he should know better than to waste time on irrelevancies, and the PCUSA’s idea of right behavior in the world of politics and war is, and has been for decades, irrelevant.
Everybody knows what Louisville will say before they say it. Nobody thinks it’s important. We were on the wrong side of the Cold War.
Our heroes in Central America couldn’t get elected by the people whose interests we claimed to favor. The list goes on, but, as I say, Who cares?
Richard A. Aubrey Jr.
Prayers for PCUSA to be grounded in Scripture
Posted Monday, January 7, 2002
As members of a regular Saturday morning men’s prayer group, we have been praying regularly for the PCUSA and particularly for the ministers.
One of our matters of prayer and discussion this morning why we are losing members (in droves) in the PCUSA. The single most important reason is the failure to teach and follow the Scriptures.
We prayed that our leaders will help us return to this basic part of our faith.
Jim Skidmore Montreat Presbyterian Church, Montreat, N.C.
Colonel’s argument: hyperbole and rhetoric
Posted Monday, January 7, 2002
I am struck with the hyperbole and rhetoric which The Layman recently published from a Special Forces Col. Charles King, “Letter to president misses mark” (Jan 3, 2002, Layman Online) regarding a recent stated clerk pastoral letter to President Bush on US military involvement in Afghanistan.
If the Colonel registered as much uncivil regard for his upper “chain of command” in the Army as he publicly seems to level on the PCUSA stated clerk in our denomination, he would probably be subject to a court marshal.
Speaking of “chain of command,” the Colonel’s arguements would be strenthened if they had once referred to the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, to our responsible Christian discipleship or specifically to just one of the well-referenced theological and Biblical studies by both previous denominations over the last number of years on this difficult subject of just war and responsible Christian ethics in combat.
It might be helpful also for Col. King to read the long-standing Presbyterian “Commitment to Peacemaking, A Believer’s Calling,” which also speaks of the Scriptural mandate to always refer to those fellow Christians in love with whom we might disagree.
Our Stated Clerk, the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, is charged by our constitution to speak publicly and in a timely manner for our denomination, based upon previous studies and statements of our General Assemblies. Col. King perhaps might do well to read the background thinking of our denomination before charging our stated clerk with falsehoods and a political agenda. I’m sure the Office of the General Assembly would be glad to provide these resources to Col. King (or to any one else) at www.pcusa.org/oga upon a request.
Andy Sale Lynchburg, Va.
Jerusalem Council: Bible right and wrong
Posted Monday, January 7, 2002
Anyone must admit Professor James Edwards’ point about the uselessness of the “argument from divorce” as an appeal for liberty in church matters pertaining to gays and lesbians. [December Layman, p. 1B] But how to explain his further misunderstandings of the theological arguments of the Covenant Network? Either he reads and cannot understand, or understands but intends to distort.
He finds it unthinkable that the present age has “invented something new regarding sex,” and adduces ancient accounts of perversion to prove the point. But the argument of Christians who support covenant relationships between gays and lesbians is precisely that something new is going on.
Up until the present age, mutually upbuilding covenanted relationships between gays or lesbians have either not existed, or have been so furiously punished and denied that no moral account has been taken of them. The simple, humble point Christians make is that when Biblical writers “uniformly condemn[ed] the practice of homosexuality,” they were correct in their assessments because they had perversions in view.
But they did not judge what they could not have seen, namely, homosexual relationships blessed by “the fruit of the Spirit – love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things.” Has Edwards really failed to understand this argument? He writes not a word about it.
Edwards’ other error is worse. True, the Jerusalem council decision (Acts 15) was not primarily about compromise on a “middle way,” though James and the conservative party there did certainly force a faithless compromise on God’s church and the gospel. (Acts 15:29) And again, Edwards correctly interprets Acts 15:15ff as “not an innovation… [but] an acknowledgment on the part of the collective church of the Spirit’s testimony to God’s revealed will in Scripture.”
However, he completely ignores the power and the point of this account. The great and difficult thing the Jerusalem council faced was to choose between two sets of Scripture texts, those that condemned Gentiles and those that welcomed them. The councillors accepted that the power of God in Christ was given to them precisely to gird them for their responsibility to declare one part of their Bible false and another true.
Millions of Christians testify that God is now sending upon the church a like demand for decision between Bible texts – between the letter of the law and the Spirit of God’s Word in Christ. By what authority does anyone declare their hearing unscriptural, since Scripture shows that the Church itself grew from just such a hearing? Would that once more “the whole assembly kept silence, and listened to Barnabas and Paul.” (Acts 15.2)
Rev. Stephen H. Phelps Central Presbyterian Church, Buffalo, N.Y.
King, not Kirkpatrick, speaks for me
Posted Monday, January 7, 2002
Please forward my congratulations to Col. Charles King on his excellent letter to President George W. Bush refuting the statements in Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick’s earlier letter to Bush. When I first read Kirkpatrick’s letter, I considered it garbage. It is refreshing to find concurrence from another written in clear terms. Kirkpatrick does not speak for me. Col. King does.
Lee W. Thomas Hockessin, Del.
Two alternatives: Purge or withdrawal
Posted Friday, January 4, 2002
The brave Presbyterian Church at Circleville, N.Y., moved decisively and deserves our admiration. In the event that the Presbytery of Hudson River refuses to let the Circleville congregation leave with its property, would it not be a worthwhile mission for the Confessing Church Movement to start a fund to help them get established in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church?
After struggling with the many divisive issues that plague the PCUSA, I have come to the conclusion that evangelical conservatives are faced with two alternatives: a purge or a withdrawal. The more difficult alternative will be to stand firm in our faith and force the PCUSA to come to terms with renegade congregations and presbyteries that violate the Book of Order by ordaining non-repentant homosexuals.
There are nearly 1,200 Confessing Church Movement congregations and about 104 More Light churches. We need to expel them. If we do not, our next best alternative is to withdraw. I have no idea how many of the 1,200 CCM churches would withdraw, but if only half did we would have the beginnings for a new Confessing Presbyterian Church.
We might consider merging with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, but we would risk overwhelming them. It might be better to establish our own new Presbyterian Church and then work to build a confederation of conservative, evangelical Presbyterian churches related to the PCA and EPC in some areas.
It seems to me we are at the point where something definitive needs to be done. The preferable course, I think, is to purge the Church of those elements which have been demonstrably un-Christian. If you do not accept the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the virgin born and physically resurrected Son of God, you may be many things but you are not a Christian. We need them out of the Church.
I will say this for the current crop of liberals who have brought us to ruin: Their theological positions are so facile that arguing with them, while maddening, also has been relatively simple. Once they are gone, we will have to handle much more difficult issues: like reinstituting Calvinism throughout the Church.
Earl H. Tilford Jr. East Main Presbyterian Church, Grove City, Pa.
Theology should shape how we live
Posted Friday, January 4, 2002
I would like to thank Col. Charles King for his comments. While I generally concur with his observations regarding the stated clerk’s letter to the president, I am troubled with the following quote: “I have no idea how you can be expected to take my denomination seriously when we can’t even keep straight the difference between our theology and our politics.”
I would submit that our theology should shape, or at least affect, our politics – how we vote, how we get involved in civic life, how we donate our money and time. As Christians, theology matters and relates to how we live our lives. Failure to live out theology in our lives has probably contributed to the enigma that is our denomination.
Col. King points out what may sound like an understatement – our denomination appears unclear on theology. Although the PCUSA purports to be one entity, there is a lack of denominational consensus on many issues. The clerk’s letter, while it may not represent the sentiments of all Presbyterians, may be entirely consistent with his theology, and reflects concerns many Presbyterians may have.
Thank you for your observations, Col. King, and thank you for the work you are do and have done for our country. I would just challenge us to realize that theology matters and should affect the living of our lives.
Geoff Ketcham Lay church volunteer, Knoxville, Tenn.
Colonel’s letter underscores difference
Posted Friday, January 4, 2002
It is good to have reinforced by Col. Charles King’s letter to the president what I already knew: Our troops in the caves and crannies of Afganistan are in better hands by far than are we Presbyterians in our congregations.
I am glad our President knows the difference between our lay people and our leaders in the PCUSA, but I’d be even happier – and we Presbyterians would be better off – if our stated clerk understood the difference as clearly as does the Special Forces colonel – and acted accordingly.
Kearsarge Community Presbyterian Church
Presbytery of Northern New England Council
Administrative Commission to the Londonderry Presbyterian
Church Editor’s Note: The Layman Online, as always, welcomes letters from its readers and provides this forum to facilitate discussion on issues facing not just the Presbyterian Church (USA), but also the wider Church. In relation to the story Rev. Merrill mentions, The Layman Online’s staff writer left phone and e-mail messages with the representatives of the Presbytery of Northern New England. These were not returned. We will continue to monitor developments regarding Londonderry Presbyterian Church and, should they warrant it, we will do a follow-up story. In the meantime, we welcome our readers to continue visiting The Layman Online for the valuable news, information and resources it provides. Editor’s Note: In many cases, sessions decline to make per-capita payments as a matter of conscience because of their disagreement with the actions of higher governing bodies. Often, sessions declining to remit their per-capita payments either hold money in escrow or use it to support ministries with which they agree. The withholding or redirecting of per-capita, which is a voluntary contribution, has risen from $163,256.29 in 2000 to $193,369.72 in 2001 and to $262,298.49 in 2002, according to the Committee on the General Assembly. More than $400,000 was expected to be redirected in 2003, which would be a record. Derek Simmons First Presbyterian Church, Santa Rosa, Calif.