If a church feels led to leave, they should be allowed to
Posted Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Well said, Pastor Carpenter. Churches that feel led to depart are charged a fee, via the court system, to exit. This alone weakens the departing church. A large church in our presbytery left and paid a “ransom” of $500,000. The church has lost a large portion of its membership (about 40 percent by some accounts) over paying that ransom. If a church feels led to leave, they should be allowed to.
There are a large number of liberal PCUSA churches that should be glad to receive anyone from a congregation where a super majority of evangelical members have voted to exit. The recent votes in favor of nFOG and amendment 10A would prove that premise. Surely those who feel that God is calling them to a looser interpretation of Scripture would be happier there.
Pastor Carpenter, your using the examples of the abusive husband and the Pharaoh of Egypt were right on.
Scott Bowman, elder and lay pastor candidate Knox Presbyterian Church, Kenmore, N.Y.
‘We met the enemy and he is us’
Posted Tuesday, June 28, 2011
It had to happen. I think we should all admit to being guilty for what happened to the PCUSA. As the cliche says, “We met the enemy and he is us.” But who will admit it? Jesus has made it clear in Matthew 5:13-20 when He warns that the duty of the church is to be salt and light to the earth and to the world by witnessing to the importance of the moral law for abundant living and good governance. When the church no longer understands that all should be built on the foundation given at Mt. Sinai, which represents the very character of the Creator, it’s only a matter of time for matters to come to what we now see.
Neal Kooyers Grass Valley
An editorial change to which I take exception
Posted Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Thank you for publishing my letter to Rev. Parker Williamson with only a few editorial changes. (Pastor asks for cease fire, June 23) I didn’t expect it to be published so much as I hoped Williamson would read it and perhaps respond personally in Christian love.
I would like to point out one editorial change or maybe it was a misprint to which I take exception. Six lines from the bottom of my letter as it appears in “The Layman Online” you have me addressing your editor emeritus as “Williamson.” In fact I only ever addressed him as “Rev. Williamson.” The (inadvertent?) omission of his title on your part does not really alter the content of my letter, but it changes the tone significantly. Please know I never intended to be disrespectful. As printed, the letter does sound that way.
Rod Pinder
Editor’s note: The Layman follows the Stylebook of the Associated Press in all of its publications. According to the stylebook “on first reference, list the person’s full name; on second reference, just list their last name. Do not include Mr., Ms. or titles, like Dr. For instance: Jane Kim said she enjoys skating … Kim also stated that skating could be dangerous.”
‘I do not believe God or Jesus would reject anyone’
Posted Tuesday, June 28, 2011
This argument within the church is not the church I grew up knowing. I am now 79 years old. As a child homosexuality was not discussed much but people who were gay or lesbian were not rejected by the church. As it is being determined this is probably related to genes who knows what genes they themselves pass on. The friends I know are honest, sweet, hard-working not like the hypocrites I am seeing “in church.” For a true religion, I do not believe God or Jesus would reject anyone.
Sandra Rian
Don’t believe everything you think
Posted Tuesday, June 28, 2011
I find it pathetically comical that Janet Edwards continues to blather on mindlessly about God’s will, as if Mateen Elass has not thoroughly skewered her wretched “logic” and debunked her baseless assertions. Does she fail totally to recognize her own public humiliation? Has she no shame about being intellectually and theologically had for lunch? Janet Edwards co-moderates More Light Presbyterians. I hope some of her friends and colleagues of greater perception can quietly advise her to cease making the organization look so intellectually bankrupt. Surely Ms. Edwards’s maddeningly shallow chatter cannot be the best that More Light Presbyterians can offer into the marketplace of ideas! I recently read on a bumper sticker my earnest caution to Ms. Edwards: Don’t believe everything you think.
James D. Berkley Bellevue, Wash.
PCUSA statistics will continue to spiral downward, but desired agenda will be in place
Posted Tuesday, June 28, 2011
The story of today’s PCUSA reminds me of an incident that occurred in my life several years ago.
One afternoon while watching a game, standing on the edge of the soccer field here at African Bible College, a student said to me, “Dr. Brown, Carey is going down the hill in a pickup truck.” I turned around, and he was. My four-year-old son had gotten in a pickup truck, had apparently released the hand brake, and was going down the road between the men’s dorms and the dining hall. Had he simply coasted down without steering, he would have veered off the road and into the grass. But he kept his hands on the wheel and skillfully guided the vehicle all the way down the hill. At the bottom of the hill he had nowhere else to go, so he slammed up against the maintenance building, took out a brick column, and telescoped the frame of the truck so that we couldn’t open or shut the doors. By God’s grace, my child was unhurt. A bunch of students and I had chased the truck downhill, but had been unable to catch up to it. Had we caught up to it, we couldn’t have stopped it.
It is the same with the PCUSA today. Its leaders are deliberately steering the denomination downhill in order to implement their agenda, which takes precedence over the well being of the PCUSA. A wreck is therefore in the making.
Those at the wheel are skillful in using Orwellian “newspeak.” They speak of inclusion, but are only interested in “including” the right people: i.e. gays, lesbians, left-wing political activists, etc. At the same time they are conspicuous in their exclusion of theological traditionalists. I know, because I remember sitting before the ministerial committee of the Memphis (now Mid-South) Presbytery of the PCUSA in the 1980s and telling them that I wanted to be a minister in their denomination, and that I wanted to go to Reformed Theological Seminary. I remember their reaction to that. Had I been sitting in an ejection seat, I’m sure they would have pressed the button. I went to RTS anyway. While there, my church transferred to the EPC.
There is a reason why the more inclusive the PCUSA gets, the smaller it becomes. This is because the group they wish to include, the GLBTs, is much smaller than the group they systematically exclude, the evangelicals. As the cause of inclusion jumps from triumph to triumph, the excluded group bails out.
The EPC started in 1981 — 30 years ago — with 12 congregations and a few thousand members. When I graduated from RTS in 1990, it had about 125 congregations and maybe 40,000 members. In 2007, it had 180 congregations. Today, four years later, it has 306 congregations and about 115,000 members. I read one forecast that stated the belief that they will pick up another 100 congregations in the next two years. It is basically the evangelical wing of the PCUSA in exile, but it’s the fastest growing denomination in America.
At the next PCUSA General Assembly next year, gay ordination will become mandatory, rather than merely permissible. They will redefine marriage. Citing compassion for the weak and oppressed of the earth, they will release funds for more abortions and same-sex household benefits. The rank-and-file PCUSA member, already a senior citizen, will not feel inclined to move his/her membership, but will instead give less money and attend services less frequently. All the statistics for the PCUSA will continue to spiral downward, but the desired agenda will be firmly in place. The PCUSA has become indistinguishable from the left wing of the Democratic Party. But since there already is a left wing of the Democratic Party, doesn’t that make the PCUSA redundant?
Larry Brown African Bible College, Lilongwe, Malawi
The sustenance upon which Edwards’ ‘interpretations’ depend is not Scriptural
Posted Tuesday, June 28, 2011
In your letter dated June 21, you stated, Janet [Edwards], that the sin of which leaders in the PCUSA stand guilty is the sin of contempt for others. I find this latest assertion to be so hypocritical that it borders on staggeringly absurd; as it is, by vast margin, those of pluralistic thinking that have demonstrated the greatest intolerance for those of traditional orthodoxy. Those of you with a seeming abysmal disregard for beliefs such as Scriptural and catechetical inerrancy have proven tear-jerkingly intolerant of those who by God’s grace are called to uphold and defend the same.
In Enfield, Conn on July 8, 1741, your 6th great grandfather declared “… But the foolish children of men miserably delude themselves in their own schemes , and in confidence in their own strength and wisdom; they trust to nothing but a shadow.”
To this end, when are you going to realize that the devices you and your cabal have successfully employed have led only to painful derisiveness and spiritual malaise? The biggest victims are those who feel locked in that abominable lifestyle and are endeavoring to look to God’s garden on Earth for answers, respite, change and healing. The swooning controversy, with all concomitant aspersions of neo-Pentecostalism that besieged him in 1741 is trivial, when contrasted to the maelstrom that rules our day, compliments of your ilk.
Those of us on the evangelical front realize that it is neither our place to condemn nor to hold contempt. The elect are reminded in Calvin’s Institutes Book 3 Chapter 12 that ” We must lift up our minds to the judgment seat of God in order to be persuaded of His gratuitous justification.”
Clearly, the sustenance upon which your “interpretations” depend is not Scriptural, despite your choreographed portrayals to the contrary.
So disingenuous, it’s mind-boggling.
You may have won the battle for control of the PCUSA’s central structure, yet, in the struggle for your own soul, you shall know no such fruition, Janet.
Eric Wells Boardman, Ohio
‘Liberals are only liberal with fellow liberals’
Posted Monday, June 27, 2011
This was a great job putting particulars into something a friend of mine in another liberal-controlled denomination used to say, “Liberals are only liberal with fellow liberals.”
When it comes to dealing with those who have the audacity to believe, and worse, proclaim what the Bible says (other than the bits and pieces that the Left selects to advance their agenda), the all-wise, all-knowing, all-benevolent left-wing liberal elite become enraged and fascist. How dare you think differently than us!
Walt Aardsma Kansas City
Can whole presbyteries secede from the PCUSA?
Posted Monday, June 27, 2011
The reality and the enormity of Amendment 10A is now starting to sink in. It sounds as though whole presbyteries are aghast now and feel a need for action.
One wonders if whole presbyteries can secede from the Presbyterian Church (USA). It seems as nothing less would suffice to remedy the situation.
George Hill Port Allen, La.
Liberals have formed their own religious elite
Posted Monday, June 27, 2011
Beautifully written. Thank you, Brian Carpenter. The white liberals have formed their own religious elite. They are guilty according to Ezekiel 34:1-6 and Matthew 27:20.
Rev. Axel Christensen
Edwards’ views would not comfort parishioners in times of trouble
Posted Monday, June 27, 2011
I have been reading the debate between Janet Edwards and Mateen Elass and others [in letters to the editor]. I frankly find the position of Edwards to be astounding. Edwards has served as a pastor of a church. Assuming her views were the same then as they are now, what a comfort she must have been to her parishioners! For example, suppose a family in her church underwent a tragedy in which their daughter was sexually abused by a group of men, tortured and murdered. From what I gather from the views of Edwards, her response would have to be that this would have been God’s will.
Edwards says in her May 27 letter, “Everything has to be God’s will; if that were not so then God’s sovereign power is undermined.” Her response, when Elass brings up atrocities, is that they merely test our faith that everything is God’s will. Furthermore, in several letters, she states that the reason we disagree about things is because God wants us to talk about them.
So in the hypothetical situation I described above, where her parishioners have had an unspeakable tragedy happen to their daughter, the only comfort she could offer them would have to be, not only that their daughter’s brutalization and death would have been God’s will, but that it was a chance to have dialogue with the people who did those things to their daughter.
This would be because, although Edwards and the family would believe those things to be bad, the abusers/torturers/murderers would believe those things to be good. Therefore they would disagree, and God wants people who disagree to have dialogue. That is the purpose of things that seem to be evil, according to the letters Edwards has written to The Layman; or at least as far as I can tell from her rather simplistic (non-)responses to Elass.
Edwards may think her views sound good when she tosses them off in a letter to The Layman. Obviously she is immune to logical thinking, or she would have retreated long ago under the onslaught of impeccable argumentation from Elass. I am hoping that this example of bringing her views to an absurd logical end will, if not convince Edwards, at least show that there are others who support Elass.
Deborah Milam Berkley, member Bethel Presbyterian Church, Seattle, Wash.
No disrespect was meant to Edwards
Posted Monday, June 27, 2011
My letter of response to the Rev. Janet Edwards was posted here on 6/23. In the process of scanning it I realized it had been edited by a no-doubt well-meaning redactor before allowing it to see the light of day. I would like to set the record straight.
I was always taught that in the medium of public discourse it was most polite to address those you don’t know by their last name with the appropriate title, and that with regard to the honorific “Reverend” such a term should not be used as a form of address. Instead, it is most appropriate to use Mr., Mrs. or Ms. With that teaching firmly embedded in my psyche, I referred to Janet Edwards throughout the bulk of my letter as Ms. Edwards. The electronic version which saw the light of day, however, simply refers to her as Edwards. Though this is standard practice in the academic world, and in minute-taking, it comes across as harsh and cold in this setting, and I do not appreciate that someone else tinkered with my writing in this way. Perhaps my assumption in using the title Ms. of Janet Edwards was incorrect, and the editor was attempting to spare me embarrassment.
In any case, I would like Janet Edwards to know that I intended no disrespect, nor intended to convey any coldness toward her in my letter. Thanks to The Layman for allowing me to clarify this.
Mateen Elass Edmond, Okla.
Editor’s note: The Layman follows the Stylebook of the Associated Press in all of its publications. According to the stylebook “on first reference, list the person’s full name; on second reference, just list their last name. Do not include Mr., Ms. or titles, like Dr. For instance: Jane Kim said she enjoys skating … Kim also stated that skating could be dangerous.”
Presbyteries commit injustice in pursuit of maintaining control, power and privilege
Posted Friday, June 24, 2011
I just finished reading the guest commentary by Rev. Brian Carpenter (posted 6/24/11). It is superb. I am compelled to respond. Carpenter’s critique of the PCUSA’s position on current local church property disputes is one of the most theologically insightful and thoughtful analyses I have read. I commend it to readers of every theological stripe.
As a practicing attorney who has advised many churches in many states concerning property matters, I have unfortunately witnessed first-hand many of my clients suffer from the injustices about which Carpenter has so eloquently written. One presbytery tried to get a court to block a local congregation from meeting to worship and then vote on whether to stay or leave the PCUSA.( Fortunately the court turned the presbytery down, citing the constitutionally guaranteed religious liberties of the congregation.).
Another presbytery announced that it was forming an administrative commission to take over a church just because it had noticed a congregational meeting to discuss options for its denominational future. This forced the congregation to vote to leave the PCUSA in order to preempt any ecclesiastical jurisdiction by the administrative commission. The presbytery responded by sending a letter to the church that said the commission “sincerely wishes to engage in a dialogue” — but before the church could respond the presbytery’s lawyers filed a lawsuit the very next day to evict the local congregation.
Other presbyteries have formed “standing” commissions with presbytery-wide jurisdiction to attempt a takeover of any church that signals a desire to meet to discuss its denominational affiliation. And if a presbytery won’t play hardball with the local church, synods threaten to take over presbyteries. At least one synod has already done so concerning property matters within a presbytery. Can presbyteries be truly surprised or genuinely offended when local churches seek recourse to impartial civil courts to obtain restraining orders that freeze the property status quo so that civil courts can fairly consider the merits of both sides’ property claims? Presbyteries leave congregations little choice when presbyteries adopt protracted and ambiguous dismissal policies.
No local church wants to file suit. As an attorney, I only counsel litigation as a last resort, and then hope that it will aid subsequent negotiation. I have even counseled some church clients not to file suit, either because they are situated in one of the few hostile legal jurisdictions that still use the “deference” method, or if they located in a legal jurisdiction that applies normal property law, the facts of the case happen to actually favor the presbytery. (Sometimes the property is actually titled in the presbytery’s name, or the presbytery loaned a lot of money that the local church has not paid back yet, or the deed contains a specific reverter clause, etc.) In many, many instances, though, the facts strongly favor the local church.
When a local church sues it is because it has to, not because it wants to. Its pleas to amicably depart within a reasonable time frame and on reasonable financial terms have fallen on deaf ears. Almost all of the churches that in recent years have chosen to ask a civil court to declare what their property rights are have first weighed their facts very carefully beforehand. In almost every case the church paid for the land, built on it, maintained the property and insured it ( often for more than a hundred years) using only their own local congregational funds without any financial assistance of any kind from the presbytery or other denominational entity. When a local church goes to the bank to borrow money to build, the presbytery is not only not a co-obligor or co-mortgagor, it even refuses to be a guarantor. The congregation is left entirely on its own when it comes to incurring debt and paying it off.
Even when there is no indication of any trust in any deed or in any local articles of incorporation or there is no compliance with state law requirements to form a valid trust, the PCUSA’s position, directed from Louisville, has been in every case to refuse to “dismiss with property,” except in exchange for an extortionist amount as an exit fee, and to adopt a take-no-prisoners approach in litigation. To the PCUSA, the facts don’t matter, no matter how unjust the result might be. In one case the presbytery, in blitzkrieg fashion, spent over $700,000 against a little 20 member church whose property was only worth, according to the presbytery’s own appraiser, less than $900,000. And this onslaught was despite the fact that the little church simply wanted to sell its property to relieve it of the burden of ownership and then remain within the PCUSA as a worshiping congregation in its (former) sanctuary under a nominal lease-back that the prospective purchaser said it would agree to.
Thankfully, many churches are finding justice in the civil courts. In South Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Indiana, Missouri and elsewhere local churches are wining when the facts are on their side. But these victories come at a cost, in money, time and energy that could have been redirected toward feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and helping the homeless. But presbyteries left them little choice. Spurred by PCUSA headquarters, presbyteries have committed injustice after injustice in their pursuit of maintaining control, power and privilege. And compounding these injustices they commit them “in the name of God,” to ostensibly maintain the unity of the church (confusing the humanly and recently created PCUSA with the universal, invisible Church). As Rev. Carpenter poignantly wrote of the PCUSA, “Thou art the man!” In the name of justice, let my people go.
Lloyd Lunceford Baton Rouge, La.
Pastor asks for a cease fire
Posted Thursday, June 23, 2011
Re: Parker Williamson’s June 21 response to Paige McRight’s June 9 column in Orlando Sentinel
Dear Rev. Williamson,
I am grateful for the stance you have taken regarding Biblical standards for ordination in the Presbyterian Church (USA). My stance is, I think, similar to yours on that matter. So are the stances of the session I moderate and the presbytery in which I serve. As a matter of fact, you’ll be glad to know that our session brought the following motion to our presbytery meeting on June 7, 2011 and it passed by voice vote!
The session of Woodbury Presbyterian Church believes that the specific language included in G6.0106b of the 2009- June 2011 edition of the Book of Order was helpful in evaluating leaders in the church and needs to be included in our evaluation of ministers of the Word and sacrament in this presbytery. Therefore, the session of Woodbury Presbyterian Church requests that Central Florida Presbytery adopt the following statement and use it in the evaluation of all candidates for ordination and/or installation to the office of minister of the Word and sacrament:
“We believe that when the newly revised Book of Order states in G6.0106b (or G-2.0104b in the New Form of Government if that passes) that ‘standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life’ that this means among other things that officers in the church are required to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to live according to these requirements shall not be received, ordained or installed as ministers of the word and sacrament in Central Florida Presbytery.”
Rationale:
This statement would make clear the understanding of Central Florida Presbytery that the “desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life” includes faithfulness in sexual practice and would give specific guidance to the Committee on Ministry and Committee on Preparation for Ministry as they examine candidates for ordination and/or installation regarding their ‘suitability’ for office.
In passing this motion, it seems to me that Central Florida Presbytery is providing important leadership for maintaining Biblical standards in our denomination. Clearly it does not solve all of the problems related to the passage of Amendment 10A, but it is a significant step in a positive direction. It would be wonderful to see other presbyteries follow our example, and I have encouraged colleagues in other presbyteries to initiate such action. As a matter of fact, I would not have been surprised if The Layman had done a story lifting up Central Florida Presbytery as an example of a body that has gone on record as declaring boldly that we will maintain Biblical standards for ordination and installation.
Of course our motion met some opposition. One person moved to amend the motion by deleting the last sentence, “Persons refusing to live according to these requirements shall not be received, ordained or installed as ministers of the word and sacrament in Central Florida Presbytery.” However, our Executive Presbyter, Dr. Paige McRight, stood to speak persuasively and decisively against the amendment. She pointed out that the challenged sentence was based on the old G-6.0106b, which is precisely the standard the motion (and you and I) seeks to preserve. Her speech prevented the motion from being gutted.
For this reason you can imagine how disappointed and perplexed I am that, far from lifting up Central Florida Presbytery as an example in The Layman, you have twice attacked our executive presbyter and, by implication most of the churches in the presbytery, in the Orlando Sentinel. I believe these attacks would have been misguided had they appeared only in the church press. It is worse that they were perpetrated “in front of unbelievers.” (cf. I Corinthians 6:6)
Williamson, if the issue really is Biblical standards, then you are shooting at your allies! You are not hurting us so much as you are hurting the cause of Christ. You are undermining the work of brothers and sisters who are fighting to defend the same conservative position you espouse on this issue. We ought to be working together. Apologies, confession and mutual forgiveness would be in order and would bring honor to Christ. Those, too, are Biblical standards. At the very least I am asking for a cease fire and extending an invitation to joint prayer for the advancement of God’s kingdom among us and through us.
Pastor Rod Pinder, D.Min, Th.M Woodbury Presbyterian Church, Orlando, Fla.
Edwards appeals to Johnson’s book; Elass appeals to Scripture
Posted Thursday, June 23, 2011
Janet Edwards of More Light Presbyterians continues to call for dialogue [letter to the editor, posted June 21]. Some of us have been willing to engage in dialogue with her, but it seems we have different understandings of what dialogue demands. One premise of dialogue, as I understand it, is the requirement to respond to the questions and objections put forward by the partner in conversation. I have attempted to do that with Edwards. What I have found from her responses is a lack of engagement on the specific issues, papered over instead with general observations grounded in personal opinions. I don’t find this to be constructive dialogue. I’m not sure what Edwards means by dialogue, but my guess is that she feels if only we can keep talking, sooner or later those of us on the “other side” will come to her way of thinking regardless of the strengths or weaknesses of her position.
I have asked Edwards a number of serious questions about her viewpoints, and have not received much thoughtful engagement in response. At times, she agrees with things I have said, only to later ignore or etiolate them. I would ask her, in the interest of true dialogue, to reread my letters to the editor concerning her thoughts, and then to address these concerns specifically.
In her most recent letter, two things again stand out. First, after agreeing with my statement concerning where we find unity in Christ (though her previous letter cited unity as coming through dialogue), she goes on to declare that where we differ is on whether homosexual behavior is sinful or not. Indeed that is true. If we must repent of our rebellion against God, and if homosexual behavior falls under the category of rebellious behavior, then those willingly practicing such activities cannot be in fellowship with Christ, nor in union with his people. Edwards believes that such behavior is not necessarily sinful, and argues that the Scriptures do not clearly settle this matter. So she invites me (and all readers of The Layman who share my same convictions) to question our settled view that Scripture is clearly opposed to homosexual practice. “I know you want it to be, but it is not,” she informs us with authority. My response to her is, “I know you want it not to be, but it is.” For support, she appeals to a book by William Stacy Johnson. For support, I appeal to the clear passages of Scripture opposing homosexuality, to the lack of any Scriptural passages encouraging homosexual behavior, to the universally held views of orthodoxy on matters of sexual ethics in the Church throughout the ages and across cultures up until the present Babylonian captivity of mainline churches to the moral anarchy of a sex-crazed host culture, and to the biological design of human sexuality originally and still given by God to the human race today. I can honestly say that I have no vested interest in homosexual behavior being marked as sin, other than that is the sensus plenior of the Biblical texts in question and of the overarching creation narrative. I would argue that this makes me less likely to be biased in my reading of the texts. Edwards and those of MLP persuasion on the other hand have a strongly vested interest in whether same-sex activity is inherently sinful or not, which should automatically lead a dispassionate observer to question the objectivity of their views. My invitation to Edwards, therefore, is that she “take a moment” in light of these truths, to reflect on her settled convictions, and to share by what authority she disregards the overwhelming evidence against her views.
Edwards believes this is just a matter of differing interpretations, and she points to how she and I differ on an understanding of Augustine with regard to divine sovereignty as evidence of the view that two well-meaning Christians can interpret the same text differently. She then states again her “logical” argument: “If nothing happens apart from God’s will, then everything is part of God’s will.” In my previous letter to her, I tried to show how this cannot be what Augustine meant by the line I quoted, but Edwards ignored my argument in favor of simply restating her views. So let me ask Edwards to forgo further monologue and engage in dialogue instead. If there are no distinctions in what is God’s permissive vs. intentional will, then why would we pray, “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven”? Since everything that happens must be God’s will already, is not Jesus wrong to teach us to pray for some change in this world to make it like heaven? In fact, if everything that happens is God’s will, then why should there ever be a “new heaven and new earth; why a heaven where evil will find no foothold, and a hell where all evil is banished and judged? If everything that has ever happened or will happen is equally God’s will, then how do you decide between good and evil, and if you decide that there is such a thing as evil, how do you reconcile the fact that an all-good God has created and intended evil? Knowing that child sacrifice has taken place in human history (and so must be God’s will, according to your view), how do you counsel those of other cultures who engage in child sacrifice today, hoping by such practice to propitiate their angry idols? Do you shrug and say, “It’s God’s will, if this is what they wish to do”? I sure hope not. How about pederasty? Prostitution? Slavery? Bestiality? Serial murder? Ethnic cleansing? Sweat shops? Subjugation of women? Pornography? Edwards claims that she and I interpret Augustine differently, but that our interpretations are both viable understandings of Augustine’s words. The “right” one depends on who happens to be in power at the moment, and can make their view the “favored” reading. I claim on the other hand, my interpretation of Augustine is correct, because it lines up with his actual words and arguments (in his larger work from which they were taken), and Edward’s interpretation is wrong. To say simply that we have differing interpretations whose validity is determined by who holds the reins of power at the moment is an unjust and depressing caricature of the search for truth. At least one of us is wrong; we cannot both be right.
What is true with regard to interpreting Augustine is also true with regard to understanding Scripture on homosexuality. At least one of us must be wrong, given our two antithetical positions. We cannot both be right. The exegetical and theological evidence has been well-laid-out over the last 40 years. There will be no more light to shed on this question from the Scriptures. The only question, it seems to me, is who is willing to see what God has laid out, and who will continue to walk in blindness. Dialogue may help us to understand one another better on this subject, but it will not produce any new truth to tip the scales. So, as I said in my last letter, I am not interested in a fruitless pursuit, especially when the arguments we put forward are ignored or sidestepped under the aegis of the empty slogan of “dialogue.”
Mateen Elass, senior pastor First Pres, Edmond, Okla.