I agree with Dr. Perrow
Posted Thursday, February 21, 2002
I do believe that Dr. Perrow is right on target. The church would do well to heed his challenge.
Ken Buckowski
Amendment A’s defeat great news to share with congregation
Posted Thursday, February 21, 2002
What great news to share with the congregation on Sunday!
Hopefully, the supports of Amendment A will seriously consider the number of people who voted against this measure and listen to what is being said. For all the talk about “dialogue,” both sides have made up their minds. So, can we let this be the “last word?”
Rev. Kevin Jennings Taylor Ridge, Ill.
Amendment A was bad polity and worse theology
Posted Thursday, February 21, 2002
I share the relief felt by other letter writers at the defeat of Amendment A, which I believe represented bad polity and even worse theology.
However, I take exception at part of Lona McArdle’s letter. She refers to having “defeated the homosexuals for one more year.” I do not believe that “defeating” any person or group of persons was the desired outcome of a “no” vote. A “no” vote was, instead, a vote in favor of God’s redemptive work carried out by the Holy Spirit, which enables all people, whatever their sexual preference, to live a life pleasing to God.
It is not appropriate, in my opinion, to categorize people based on sexuality, as that is reductionistic. Instead, all people are, first and foremost, children of God. All of us have been granted salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. The issue is how do we respond to that gift? What is the role of sanctification in our lives? This is an issue that concerns all of us, whatever our sexual leanings.
John Erthein M. Div. Senior, Princeton Theological Seminary
Nice that ‘A’ was defeated, regrettable that so much time was spent on it
Posted Thursday, February 21, 2002
It is nice that this has been defeated; it is regrettable that so much of our time has been used in this pursuit.
For the past six years, and perhaps for many more to come, we have neglected the work we should be doing. It would be wonderful to be able to devote all our time and energies in the worship and honor of God, in the pursuit of enhancing our congregations, and getting on with our business for which the church was founded.
My fear is that it will not go away. It has become a gigantic power struggle, for which we should all feel ashamed. If and when the Jews repent for having killed the Messiah and we can all accept Christ, this struggle may end. However, we will then be faced with the tribulations. I see no peace.
Let us all serve Christ to the best of our abilities.
Earl W. Richbourg Elder, Northminster Presbyterian Church, Pensacola, Fla.
Defeat of Amendment A is wonderful news
Posted Wednesday, February 20, 2002
This is wonderful news.
When I read it, I was so thankful that this horrible, absolutely sinful amendment was defeated.
Does this defeat mean that we have only defeated the homosexuals for one more year? Does this issue have to be put on the ballot year after year? Why do the gay rights people have the right to put us through this year after year? Are there really that many in our Presbyterian Church? I would welcome any and all effort to suppress this proposal for all time.
Regardless, right now it is a defeat and I thank God for it.
Lona McArdle
When did being Spirit-led cease to be an expectation for a pastor
Posted Wednesday, February 20, 2002
Thank God for the power of the Holy Spirit, the gift of both the Father and the Son. When did being prayerful and Spirit-led cease to be an expectation for a Presbyterian pastor?
Pastor Howard writes, “After a season of prayer, the Spirit has told me to withhold this gift as a way of provoking a spiritual reformation within the denomination.” This is an act that the Session can take because the per capita is voluntary. As I understand the Session, it consists of the pastors and the elders of a particular church. The action that the Session takes is thus an action in which the pastor participates. Pastor Howard nowhere mentions the Session in discussing this action. Is this something that he will do unilaterally?
Pastor Howard asks the question, “Can I as a spirit-filled, prayer-led pastor survive in the Presbyterian Church (USA)?” I believe that his letter, focused on what he is, what he needs and what he wants, answers that question. He probably isn’t a Presbyterian, although I have no doubt that he is a faithful Christian. In fact, he sounds like some of the Baptist pastors I used to hear, whose focus was always on what the “Lord had just laid on their heart.” Based upon their sermons and the sermons that I have heard from Presbyterian pastors, “what the Lord had just laid on their heart” was more of an excuse for not preparing for preaching than it was an issue of inspiration.
Pastor Howard, if the Spirit leads you to leave, then go. That might be wonderful for you and for those to whom you might minister. But, in the meantime, you might want to remember that in Venetia you are part of something bigger than you are – the Session at Peters Creek Presbyterian Church.
David Kesterson Elder, Raleigh, N.C.
Pastor can survive in the denomination
Posted Wednesday, February 20, 2002
The Rev. L. Rus Howard asks a very thought-provoking question about whether he can survive as a charismatic pastor in the PCUSA. The question remains very interesting even within the realm of the conservative/evangelical movements of the PCUSA.
As a layperson, I can only attempt an answer as someone from the pew. I am no expert on the camaraderie of PCUSA pastors or the bureaucratic processes in our denomination, but I would welcome “pentecostal” Presbyterian congregations into our fold.
Having said that, I do think there must be still be a certain “order” to existing as a charismatic congregation. This would be essential if remaining under the Presbyterian umbrella. In my faith journey, I have been privileged to know and share fellowship with many charismatic Christians. When I first became a Christian, I attended a charismatic fellowship for over a year and was surprised to learn many participants were from mainstream churches (including a former Presbyterian pastor). While many professed more overt gifts of the spirit, such as tongues, these manifestations were never part of worship, but reserved for the private prayer time and edification of the individual believer.
Unfortunately, I have attended other congregations where the spiritual gifts got out of hand. This is where things can get sticky because some churches do not follow the Biblical admonitions concerning prophecy, tongues and interpretation. I know some mainstream conservatives do not accept all of these teachings, but I respect their opinion. While I personally believe all the gifts of the spirit are still alive and well in modern times, I do not think speaking in tongues is necessarily the primary manifestation of a spirit-filled Christian. I am not suggesting this is Rev. Howard’s position, but in my experience this is a common belief in some charismatic circles and would be a huge pitfall in the Presbyterian world.
I completely understand Rev. Howard’s discontent with lukewarm and sugar-coated sermons. I think, even in some of our evangelical churches, many pastors still tend to steer clear of controversy or “stepping on toes.” Our journey as Christians should not always be comfortable and there should be times when the message from the pulpit or the Sunday school room should bring us conviction from the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, we are not equipping ourselves very well to live as Christians in this fallen world.
Over the years, I have been pleasantly surprised at the openness with which my fellow Presbyterians (Baptists and Methodists) have embraced charismatic Christians. I was even more surprised when I discovered they didn’t automatically discount the beliefs of charismatics. In fact, there used to be a very successful metropolitan Bible study in Atlanta sponsored by the Church of God attended by Christians of every denomination.
As a layperson, I truly believe there is a place in our denomination for Rev. Howard. I think he would also be pleasantly surprised at the support he would find in our ranks of laypersons, though I admit the clergy would likely be a challenge. I realize I am speaking as a Southerner in the midst of a diverse “Bible belt” but, hopefully, my experience is not unique only to this region. If he is so led, I pray Rev. Howard can find support to continue the direction of a Christ-centered faith journey in the PCUSA.
Mike Montgomery Atlanta, Georgia
How will the national media cover the defeat of 01-A?
Posted Wednesday, February 20, 2002
As someone who watches the media “spin” on events in general and the church in particular, I wonder whether the defeat of “01-A” will cause the same sensational “splash” that resulted when the General Assembly adopted it last year.
I recall driving home from Louisville and hearing reports about its passage on several national news networks. Will they give the same coverage to upholding the standards of 0106b?
I doubt it. Perhaps we need to take out some full-page ads in the major media markets that would highlight the Biblical faithfulness of many Presbyterians and applaud their courage to stand in the face of a populist culture which seeks affirmation of whatever people want to do.
Why was no issue made of this?
Rev. Kerry Carson Pastor, First Presbyterian Church, Conrad, Iowa, A Confessing Church Congregation
Praise God for the defeat of Amendment A
Posted Wednesday, February 20, 2002
Praise God from whom all blessings flow … praise Father, Son and Holy Ghost!
Richard Sloma
Amendment A and the issue of adultery
Posted Wednesday, February 20, 2002
While I am pleased that Amendment A is going to be defeated, I was disappointed that people only seemed to be interested is the gay issue. The fidelity part of it referred to marriage. One of the Ten Commandments states: “Thou shall not commit adultery.” Were we just going to throw out this commandment? How many other commandments do we feel are not needed?
Why was no issue made of this?
Julia W. Ritchie Houston, Texas
Spirit-filled pastor can survive in the PCUSA
Posted Wednesday, February 20, 2002
Pastor Howard has been called to declare the truth of God’s word There is much that [Pastor Howard has] said that resonates within me. I believe that there are many of us who have been called to declare the truth of God’s Word in the love of Christ who wonder if we can survive in a denomination that insists on surrendering to the culture rather than being its conscience and its source of hope.
I have pleaded before God on numerous occasions as to what to do in the face of a denomination that appears to drift further and further away from Christian orthodoxy, and I have heard the Spirit speak only two words to my heart: “Be faithful.”
If we quit the field, where is the witness to the Truth? May God grant us true revival.
Grif Vautier
Sophia movement hidden in different form
Posted Monday, February 18, 2002
I am a seminary student at one of our PCUSA seminaries in Louisville, Ky. I am a second-career person nearing 40 who had no idea that God would call a computer programmer and accountant to the field of public speaking and ministry. But here I am.
This semester I am sitting out for two reasons one is health issues with my lovely wife who is recovering from complications due to diabetes. The second and major reason is my love of Christ and the difficulty of reconciling my belief in scripture as the Word of God while attending a a seminary that thinks the Bible is important but only as a historical tome which can be reinterpreted and reimagined into the mindsets of today’s morally and scripturally perverse generation who stand for anything – which really means stand for nothing.
I too face severe challenges from the Committee on Ministry over switching and attending a more conservative, biblically based seminary. What I fear is the damage that this liberal agenda teaches malleable younger minds who go to seminary looking for the truth to base their life and practice as ministers upon.
While I have learned much in my first semester I have learned as much to be appalled at. In particular is the attention made to current theologians who are completely remiss in their theology, choosing to bend theology to fit their point of view. The teachings of Cathryne Johnson author of She who Is come to mind. The Sophia movement is not dead; it is simply being hidden in a more palatable format.
What I feel is needed is a strong PCUSA seminary tied to and required to follow the standards endorsed in the PCUSA Constitution. Until we have a seminary held accountable for the teachings it generates we have no hope for standards within the PCUSA that are true to historical Biblical truths.
Charles T. Miller Louisville, Ky.
Decoding the ‘defeat speak on Amendment 01-A
Posted Monday, February 18, 2002
With the irrefutable landslide rejection of Amendment 01-A, the predictable excuse-making has begun. While this is the third such rejection of the homosexual lobby by the Presbyteries of this church, the fanatical adherents to the sex cult are unbowed.
Therefore, it is important to decode their “defeat speak” to understand their future intentions. So, we should look at lawyer Doug Nave’s remarks on the Witherspoon Society Web site since he was the Overture Advocate for the eventual Amendment 01-A.
NAVE: “The last General Assembly voted in favor of that measure by a margin of 60% to 39%. However, the votes in the presbyteries so far have largely reversed those percentages.”
TRANSLATION: “In 2001, we assembled the most radical and liberal GA in church history, but those Luddites in the pews keep blocking our efforts.”
NAVE: “A good part of the voting this year appears to be motivated by fear of schism and a desire to wait for the Theological Task Force report in 2005.”
TRANSLATION: “REAL Christians would certainly have voted our way but for the fear-mongers! They used homosexual ordination as a battle cry for schism. With Amendment 01-A, we would be an inclusive church, not an apostate one. I’m a lawyer, believe me! They may think they have won but we are not done yet! We have packed the Theological Task Force with OUR people, so we’ll get even in 2005.”
NAVE: “We had hoped that it might be possible to resolve this divisive debate before then (2005), by setting aside our differences, honoring the discernment of local governing bodies, and showing mutual forbearance in what is plainly a matter of conscience.”
TRANSLATION: “We thought we could steamroll the presbyteries on the third try because they were exhausted from years of saying ‘NO.’ We thought they would just want to get along with us, because we are sincere and conscientious sinners. But they still cling to anachronisms like Genesis, Leviticus and Romans.”
NAVE: “It now appears that the way forward is not so direct, but will require continued dialogue, helping everyone in our fellowship to discern more clearly the gifts for service that our gay and lesbian members bring to the church, and to appreciate more fully the unfathomable grace that lies at the heart of our faith.”
TRANSLATION: “Maybe three landslides against us means we might need a new approach. I just hope they keep taking us seriously and allow us to stay at the table. Maybe if we use better PR for a while. Maybe if the moderator would ‘be nice’ to everyone until they settle down. After all, if it helps church growth to give into homosexual demands, they will see how waiving those silly Bible verses isn’t such a big deal. Maybe if we just make ourselves worthwhile in church service they’ll be nice and let us show them the Third Way, (aka OUR WAY).”
It is obvious that the heart and soul of the PCUSA gains its strength from Scripture, not lawyerly rhetoric. This membership knows we must make an accounting to the Lord one day for our choices. We know that putting social convention ahead of his Word is an arrogance for which we would eternally pay. We know that bending the knee to this world’s sin is worshipping a false god. We know his true servants seek Biblical sanctification, not worldly accommodation.
Dan Greenblat San Diego
Dialogue is part of loving our enemies
Posted Monday, February 18, 2002
I was shocked and disappointed to read your article indicating lack of support for dialogue with U.S. Islamic leaders as suggested by our national PCUSA office.
The purpose of those dialogues is not to soften Islam’s image but to balance our own views regarding the differences between militant Islamic terrorists and the many peace-loving Islamic people living in our country and abroad.
More to the point, don’t the Confessing Church and The Layman believe in the teachings of the Bible as the authoritative word of God? If so please note, Matthew 5:38-48. Jesus said, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”
To dialogue with our Islamic neighbors and to stand up for those who have sometimes been subject to hate crimes in our own country, is to fulfill the will of God in my view.
Connie Bell Green Valley, Ariz.
Lord of the Rings not an allegory
Posted Monday, February 18, 2002
The question of Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings being a Christian allegory becomes somewhat moot when one reads his “Forward to the Second Edition” which is included in Houghton Mifflin’s ©1994 edition.
Tolkien says (p. xvi), “As for any inner meaning or ‘message,’ it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical.” On p. xvii, he continues, “I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers.”
He labels allegory as “the purposed domination of the author.” A rule of literature is that you can take from it what you see there, even if the author never intended it so, as has been done with Star Wars.
The Lord of the Rings is far too rich to be encapsulated in a film. The movie struck me as comparable to Cliff Notes – bad ones at that. The Harry Potter film, however, followed the book amazingly well. These books rank up at the top in imagination, structure, foreshadowing and use of many threads of folklore. Rowling has to be too busy weaving the story to go into witch-training. (After all, most of her “spells” are simply Latin words.) Her characters are believable and well fleshed out, and were it not for all the flak, I would say, “enchanting.”
Barbara E. Pugh Orlando, Fla.