If trend continues, PCUSA will represent only liberal view in future
Posted Friday, February 25, 2011
I don’t think either side on the ordination standards will bend. Is there any way that I can stay in Presbyterian Church (USA) and believe in the Biblical standards on ordination and practice them? If so, I would stay. If not, I really need to find out another option.
No matter what you say including church history, theology and as such, it wouldn’t matter. Looking at myself, I don’t think I will change my mind no matter what the liberal side would say because sin is sin.
The numbers of voting ministers and commissioners of almost all presbyteries have been significantly less than the last time (only two years ago). It means that many people and congregations have already left PCUSA. If this trend continues, PCUSA will represent only one side in a very near future.
I’m a minority, and I would like to ask liberals to please stop using us as an example for diversity and inclusiveness. It’s hypocritical to mention us because they are not really inclusive to us anyway. The fact is that a vast majority of Korean churches and Hispanic churches oppose this amendment.
It’s not a matter of discrimination but of considering homosexual activity as sin or not. According to the Bible, it’s not a sin to be born a minority. It’s not a sin to be woman. But is it sin or not to practice homosexual behavior? The Bible is very clear.
It’s required of us to love everyone, but it’s a totally different thing to ordain someone to be a church leader. Would you ordain someone who claims to be having an affair? Would you ordain someone who refuses to stop abusing someone else?
Is there a future for PCUSA? I do hope so. Joon W. Lee, pastor Korean Presbyterian Church of Columbus (Lewis Center, Ohio)
Presbyteries aren’t fairly constituted so they do not reflect beliefs of Presbyterians
Posted Friday, February 25, 2011
I write to thank the Rev. Winfield Casey Jones for writing a clear, well-reasoned commentary about a major source of trouble in the Presbyterian Church (USA): Skewed voting. Jones hits the nail on the head. He could hardly be more correct, despite some reactions to the contrary. Our presbyteries – and because of them, our General Assembly – are not fairly constituted and thus do not faithfully reflect the beliefs and will of Presbyterians as a whole.
Without a doubt, non-parish clergy, entrenched presbytery officeholders, retired clergy and overrepresented small congregations gain far more voting power than their fair “representation” of Presbyterians. (And I say this having been a non-parish clergyperson and now serving an overrepresented small congregation. And yes, yes, I know Presbyterianism is not intended to be congregational in polity.) Decisions get made by a body that speaks more for bureaucratic and often progressive interests than for the theology and convictions of the majority of Presbyterians, many of whom are woefully underrepresented in large, flourishing evangelical congregations.
For instance, the Presbytery of Pueblo has about 7,500 members. One congregation in that presbytery – First Presbyterian Church of Colorado Springs – has roughly 4,100 members. Yes, more than half of the presbytery’s members come from one congregation with a very tall steeple. So, whenever a hot issue arises in Pueblo Presbytery, do the presbyters from First Presbyterian Church get to cast more than half of the votes? Definitely not! What might they have – maybe a dozen votes out of 100 or so in presbytery? One church has more than half of the members of presbytery, but only about one-eighth of the votes? What is fair about that?
John Shuck [letter to the editor, posted Feb. 23] derisively suggests that if tall-steeple churches consider being grossly underrepresented a problem (as he probably would, if the advantage weren’t his), they ought to overture presbytery in order to get it considered at General Assembly. But what an exercise in futility that would be! Exactly because presbyteries and especially the General Assembly so poorly represent the convictions of the person in the pew, such efforts would be nonstarters. If not having a proportional number of votes is the problem, then a disproportional number of opposition votes would doom any overture addressing the problem. The majority of an unfair, imbalanced General Assembly would not want to confer representative balance, because that would mean losing political advantage that is much valued by those with disproportional influence.
Presbyteries will gleefully take tall-steeple per-capita funds on a per-capita basis, but they will usually dispense ecclesiastical influence on something more like a “we’ll get eight votes to your one” ratio. We need to listen to Jones. He is demonstrably right. James D. Berkley Seattle, Wash.
To deny one half of the truth of issues is disingenuous and patently false
Posted Friday, February 25, 2011
A [stated clerk] contributor to The Layman, dated Feb. 22, spoke to two supposed misunderstandings of Presbyterian policy to which I, and many others, take exception. In his view, “per-capita is not taxation, nor is the election of elder commissioners representation.”
There may be one sense, or from one angle, in which this is true. But in another sense it is patently false. My dictionary defines “tax” as “A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government.” And, “A fee or dues levied on the members of an organization to meet its expenses.” How can anyone with even a modicum of common sense, honesty, and integrity, in light of the definition, say per capita is not a tax?! Even if one argues per capita is not collectable on the congregational level, and thus not a tax, GA has determined that presbyteries must remit, in full, those per-capita funds congregationally withheld. At that level, it is required. It is a collectable financial liability, a tax collected by a government for the purposes of said government and the entity over which it presides. And that aside, even if a congregation or individual withholds their per capita that doesn’t change the fact that is assessed. In the secular world, our federal government has the right to forego whatever collection it might deem proper to forego. Is it more than a tax? Yes, but it still is a tax.
As to the issue of elder commissioners being not representative, this too is patently false. His words, as demonstrated by at least three quotes, even betray his conclusion. First, “‘Presbyters are not simply to reflect the will of the people, but rather to seek together to find and represent the will of Christ’ (G-4.0301d).” It is of course true that presbyters are to “represent the will of Christ.” But that in no way negates representation regarding the congregation. “… are not simply to …” does not negate congregational representation, but affirms it. Presbyters are to reflect the will of the people, though this may not be taken in a way that precludes or supercedes that which follows. Both are true.
If one can accept a secular analogy and parallel, one only needs to consider the U.S. House of Representatives. This is as representative of those who send them as one can get, yet our representatives go with the further charge of seeking the greater will and/or good of the body politic. It is representation on both levels.
Second, he writes, “The Form of Government does, of course, contain a fixed formula for increasing the numbers of commissioners from larger churches.” How in the world can this be true and one not understand it precisely demonstrates congregational representation? He goes on to further prove this, writing, “Up to the 2,000-member mark, it’s one additional commissioner for every 500 members; above that mark, one for every 1,000.” There is no way to read this and not understand its representative character.
It seems that many presbytery stated clerks and general presbyters can’t quite figure out why they are distrusted by congregations and their members. When they come out with statements which are not true, and arguments which are not true, and ultimately self-negating, they are discredited. It seems they would be seen in a far better light, and be much more trustworthy if they just admitted 1) that per capita is in one sense a tax, but one for a very good purpose, and 2) that our presbyters simultaneously do represent those who send them as well as the interests of Jesus Christ. To deny one half of the truth of either of these is disingenuous and patently false. Rev. Steven L. Seng Torrington, WY
Is renewal of the PCUSA truly at hand?
Posted Thursday, February 24, 2011
I enjoyed John Shuck’s letter of 2/23 explaining how “big steeple” churches (I belong to one) can get more representation at their respective presbyteries. If it is as simple as sending a resolution for presentation at General Assembly then renewal of the PCUSA is truly at hand! Mike Montgomery Peachtree Presbyterian Church, Atlanta, Ga.
What do we do if 10-A passes?
Posted Thursday, February 24, 2011
So I ask again. We have heard from almost half of our presbyteries and those in favor of Amendment 10-A are ahead by 12. I have no idea what the inclinations are of the remaining presbyteries. But, what do we do if “10-A” passes?
I don’t even care what “side” you are on. Seriously, what happens? And if you say “nothing” you might be a bit naive. I grow weary of those who say “well, when (fill in the blank) happens I am out of here.” Yeah, right! We’ll see. So, what are you going to do if “it” passes? Bill Little McKeesport, Pa.
Comments are a distortion of Christ’s message
Posted Thursday, February 24, 2011
Leah Fowler in her letter of February 18th is critical of those who signed the Open Letter to PCUSA. She suggests that those leaders would exclude gays, lesbians, bisexual, transgender people, women and racial minorities from the communion table. I am honored to know personally several of the signatories, and this is a total mischaracterization. Requiring rules of behavior for ordained church leaders is a far cry from excluding sinners from church. The pews would be empty, if we did that!
What is really a belief that it is inappropriate to ordain someone, “who refuses to repent of that which the confessions call sin,” is being portrayed by the pro-gay lobby as an un-Christ like exclusion. How can anyone preach the message of repentance and forgiveness, while their own lifestyle denies portions of the Scriptures? Does the term “hypocrite” come to mind? Appointing a known and unrepentant embezzler to be church treasurer would be equally inappropriate! Comments, like Leah Fowler’s, are a distortion of Christ’s message that attempt to muzzle those who would uphold Biblical standards.
PCUSA “officially” holds up the Scriptures as the Word of God, and our pastors in their ordination vows have promised to accept them to be “by the Holy Spirit,” an “authoritative witness to Jesus Christ” and “God’s Word.” However some people are “cherry picking” which parts of Scripture to accept, or they claim that certain passages are poorly translated, and don’t really mean what they say!
God’s Word is God’s Word is God’s Word; how arrogant for us mere mortals to decide which Scripture passages do not apply today, or to set ourselves up as better scholars of Latin, Greek and Hebrew than those who have researched and translated the earliest texts available, to give us the NIV (for example)!
The result is a refusal to acknowledge that homosexual behavior is a sin.
Jesus welcomed everyone, sinners, Samaritans, even tax collectors. When confronted by the Pharisees about His unsavory table companions, He said “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
The Gospels do not record any instance of Jesus dealing with homosexuality, but we do know how He handled adultery. The story is told in John, Chapter 8, of the woman caught in the act and was about to be stoned to death, per the Law of Moses. We all know it was a setup, otherwise the male adulterer would also have been there, as both parties were subject to the death penalty. Jesus’ classic response was “Let him, who is without sin, cast the first stone.” When all the woman’s accusers had slunk off, Jesus said “Then neither do I condemn you; go and leave your life of sin.”
What is important here is that Jesus did not condone the sin. He didn’t parse the law to make it a “local option.” He didn’t even change the death penalty.
He paid the penalty Himself on the cross, instead of allowing the woman to be stoned.
I see this letter as a statement acknowledging that PCUSA is broken, and bitterly divided over the issue of ordination standards. Both sides are entrenched in their positions, and I have no doubt that few people are going to be swayed by arguments from either side. I would estimate that perhaps 50 percent of the membership is against gay ordination, 25 percent is pro and 25 percent don’t care. Unfortunately the commissioners at GA do not reflect that ratio, so we have endless votes for and against, with the pro gay lobby attempting to do end runs around the Book of Order. This proposal is an attempt to find a way forward, restructure PCUSA, end the bickering and get on with the “Great Commission.” Arthur McLean, Covenant Presbyterian Church, Austin, Texas
Using Presbyterian process isn’t as dramatic as calling us all deathly ill
Posted Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Is Winfield Casey Jones serious? The reason that the big steeple pastors wrote their “deathly ill” letter that accuses the denomination of “creeping universalism” and “Biblical drift” is because they are underrepresented at presbytery meetings? Is that all you boys want? More votes for your churches at presbytery?
Mr. Jones writes: “Is it any wonder the pastors wrote a letter?” Surprisingly, there is a solution to such a conundrum. If the boys don’t feel that they have enough votes, they can send a resolution to their presbyteries who in turn can send a resolution to the next General Assembly where it can be considered. If that is really all the boys are worried about, they could make their case. It would be heard.
This is how we make change in a constitutional form of government. Although, it isn’t as dramatic as calling us all deathly ill and inviting the like-minded to schism. So is that really the issue, fellas? Or is Mr. Jones just blowing smoke? John Shuck Elizabethton, Tenn.
Amendment 10-A vote may serve as the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back
Posted Wednesday, February 23, 2011
It is not surprising that Southern presbyteries are voting for Amendment A. The majority of conservative Southern Presbyterians have long since gone into the Presbyterian Church in America and, should Amendment A pass, more will follow. This vote will serve as the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back.
Soon a once great denomination, with deep and vital roots in the South, will be gone with the wind.
But another may be rising, whether it’s the Presbyterian Church in America or the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, or a new and more conservative iteration of the remnant of this dying denomination.
Soon, what will be left of the Presbyterian Church (USA) in the South will be liberal ministers, a reasonable number of liberal members, and a majority who hang around because of traditions they can’t stand to break: like “Momma and Daddy were married and buried here, I was baptized here, married here, and I’ll be buried here as well.” You need more than tradition to build a viable Church: you need a strong theological foundation and liberal mush isn’t it. Earl Tilford First Presbyterian Church, Tuscaloosa, Ala.
Push for unity should be first in the hearts of every person and church
Posted Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Confessions are getting a lot of attention these days in the Presbyterian Church. So much so, I feel it is highlighting people’s gross misunderstanding about what a confession is and what its purpose is as part of our Presbyterian Church (USA) constitution.
Amongst the most heard comments on the new Belhar confession is that having one more confession only detracts and weakens the church and constitution itself, which I find an absurd statement. We could liken that to the idea that adding amendments to the U.S. Constitution has weakened the U.S. government and its people. As a democratic republic we believe that amending the constitution adds to the strength and flexibility of our government and it was created to do exactly that. It is much the same with our constitution in the PCUSA. The idea that having more than one confession somehow allows us to draw toward not having any confessions only serves to prove that we are completely missing what a confession means and means to accomplish.
Consider this idea; if we had fewer confessions, each confession would be so much better known, enforced and understood. This doesn’t play true with any other form in life, and the argument cannot hold up. It would be the same to argue that the Bible, if only it were shorter, would be better obeyed and known. That somehow the sheer size of a volume keeps people from knowing the information and creed held within it. Saying that length somehow detracts from the coherency of a document is to prove a dismal knowledge of the rich history and value our current confessions hold.
What is interesting is that the very question of “why add a new confession” is addressed in the Book of Confessions itself under the “Confessional Nature of the Church.” Reading the explanations found there, it is easy to see that each confession represents an action of worship, instruction, defense of our orthodoxy, preservation of the disciplines of the church, or to serve as a rallying point in times of persecution. Belhar Confession does this, and moreover, you could argue that it does this in a way that is unique to our current confessions included in the book.
Detractors of the Belhar hold that since this work was translated it cannot possibly be of any worth. Further, there are some who say that the mere act of translating it is, in effect, racist. I find this interesting since the Helvetic Confession and the Declaration of Barmen were also translated. And what of the Apostles Creed? Or the Nicean? Surely these two were not written in standard English? I don’t think anyone called the translators of those documents racist, nor do I think that anyone would be able to give any credit to those who did. The translations were not created to measure up to some imagined standards set by a liberal, anarchist, neuter western church. Instead the translation was created so that the people of the PCUSA could understand the spirit of the original Afrikaans in which the confession was written. Only then can we decide on its resonance within the current church. To accuse else wise is only to play instigator in some kind of worthless witch-hunt.
The main theme of Belhar to me is one of unity. And yes, a unity that is called for in strong language. Yet, I feel that it harkens back to even the commandments. When God asks for something done, whether it is unity or love for our God, it is said boldly. “You will not have God’s before me,” is not some meek asking, or some timid desire for our action. It is a command. Thus does the Belhar follow in the same theme, demanding unity from the church at all cost. I do not find the bold language of the Belhar confession off-putting in any way. I find it refreshing. I find it frightening only in the implications that it has should we follow it and work for unity in the name of our Christian belief and heritage. Schismatic action in the church should be considered a sin, and surely be avoided at all costs. This confession does not need to be lectured on John 17, as it blatantly states that verse was used in its creation.
Too often is the first reaction of our churches and congregations to “Take their toys and go home.” They withhold funding from presbytery to make childish statements, threaten to leave, or to sell property. These kinds of actions run incongruent with the unity that Jesus Christ prayed for, and in effect, renders their arguments moot. If something is truly worth arguing over then surely it must be worth staying and fighting for instead of “abandoning the heathens” to their just dessert so that the righteous can go elsewhere. Perhaps there is a place for the amicable parting of ways, but the push for unity should be first and foremost in the hearts of every person and church.
Church unity and unity for the work of God can be achieved even though we hold to different denominations. Saying differently is like saying a family can no longer be considered related or working to the same goals unless they agree on every single topic. The Belhar confession has as a theme the unity of spirit in the face of injustices. It asks that Christians strive against the powerful (and perhaps that is really what scares us about its adoption), and to work toward the reconciliation of those in despair. To imagine that accepting this confession is equal to agreeing that all denominations everywhere are rendered against God, is the worst kind of doom-saying taken to a ridiculous extreme.
The Belhar confession is a statement created by faithful people who were driven by the incredible circumstance of their world, and of the violent persecution they faced. Out of that came words of unity and hope when there should have only been the darkest kind of despair. Where ashes should have been sown with weeping, there was instead a voracious outcry for unity and justice that found no other voice than what was expressed in the hearts of faithful Christians.
Our acceptance of this confession into the Presbyterian cannon follows our tradition and acceptance of other equally important documents from the sour bitterness of the world. When Barth bravely wrote the words in Barmen, he and the other writers made it plain to the world that the evil of the German government was not something they would stand for. By adopting it the PCUSA took that stand alongside them, and others like them. In the same spirit we now have the blessed chance to stand. To accept the Belhar is to link hands with an incredible and noble people who fought injustice across the wide berth of the decades.
By accepting it we accept that we must be about fighting injustice everywhere, that we must have the unity that only freedom can bring, and that no human authority can ever stop our actions to that end. Belhar is a powerful and unique document that falls into place easily with the rich confessional heritage that the PCUSA already owns. I for one will be proud to add it to our incredible story.
Christopher M. Tweel, DCE Prospect Presbyterian Church Mooresville, NC
The voice of a single member is heard more by a smaller church session
Posted Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Your article by Winfield Casey Jones about representation of large churches – I guess not being properly represented in the PCUSA – brought some thoughts to mind. First of all in a smaller church of about 120 members I think there could be a session of 12 for example, each session member being responsible for 10 members. In the larger churches such as those having as many as 4,000 members I believe the session is still around 12 – 20 or so. I will gladly stand corrected if this is not the case.
So regarding the logic of representation it seems to me if one wants to make sure everything is even, a 4,000 member church should have around 400 members on session to insure that all voices are heard consistently in the PCUSA. But the 4,000 member churches don’t practice this, so why raise the fuss about how their voice is to be heard in the greater denomination at large?
I only think about this for the fact at one time I was a member of a 2,000 member church in the PCUSA and am now a member of a 175 member church both of which had sessions of similar sizes. Needless to say the voice of a common member such as myself is heard much more greatly by a session of a smaller church than a large one. Earl Apel Cincinnati, Ohio
Correction for an error in recent article
Posted Wednesday, February 23, 2011
I ‘d like to apologize for and correct an error in my recent article, “Large PCUSA churches under-represented.” I said the median Presbyterian Church (USA) congregation was around 200, but I should have said the average size of a PCUSA congregation is around 200. The median congregation size is much less – around 97, while it is the average PCUSA membership that is just under 200.
I’d like to thank Frank Norment for pointing this out to me. I do not believe this in any way changes the case I was making since my numbers were based on Form of Government mandates for representation of congregations. For example, as I said, 4,000 Presbyterians in twenty 200 members churches (average size) get 20 elder commissioners at presbytery while if all these members were in one congregation they would get six elder commissioners at presbytery. If one were to think about median size congregations of around 100 members, the comparison is even more exaggerated: 4,000 Presbyterians distributed among 40 of these median sized 100-member congregations would get 40 elder commissioners versus the six elder commissioners the same members would get if they all belonged to the same congregation. And as I said, General Assembly per capita is strictly proportional to membership. Winfield Casey Jones
Open letter based on two common misunderstandings of Presbyterian polity
Posted Tuesday, February 22, 2011
The February 21, 2011 article by Winfield Casey Jones, “Larger churches systematically under-represented,” appears to be based on two common misunderstandings of Presbyterian polity.
The first has to do with representation. The Form of Government says there are two types of members in a presbytery: ministers and churches. That’s why the elders who vote in presbytery meetings are called “commissioners,” not “representatives.” Commissioners are not members of presbytery; their churches are. It’s a fine distinction, but an important one. Never has our polity incorporated the Congregationalist idea that presbyteries are meant to be “representative” of the people in the pews, either numerically or in accepting instructions on how to vote.
Mr. Jones bases his analysis on the concept of what he calls “representative power.” While that may be how Congregationalists operate, in a Presbyterian system it’s a misnomer. When ministers and elder commissioners come together to constitute the presbytery, they are forming a body that’s intended to become, by the power of the Spirit, more than the sum of its parts. “Presbyters are not simply to reflect the will of the people, but rather to seek together to find and represent the will of Christ” (G-4.0301d). The presbytery – not the congregation – is, in fact, the fundamental unit of church government (hence, our name). That’s why the constitution declares that powers not specifically assigned to congregations, synods or the General Assembly are “reserved to the presbyteries” (G-9.0103).
Practically speaking, as Mr. Jones accurately points out, ministers and elders sitting in a presbytery meeting continue to be informed by the “life, values, ethos and theology” of the congregations in which they spend much of their time. Distinctive local perspectives are extremely valuable, and ought to be freely shared. Yet, when such individuals enter into the common life of the presbytery, they agree to take a larger view, collectively assuming responsibility “for the mission and government of the church throughout its geographical district” (G-11.0103). They pledge themselves to represent the interests of every congregation in that area, not just their own.
The Form of Government does, of course, contain a fixed formula for increasing the numbers of commissioners from larger churches. Up to the 2,000-member mark, it’s one additional commissioner for every 500 members; above that mark, one for every 1,000. Personally, I could be convinced that amending the formula to apply the 1-500 ratio consistently, even above 2,000 members, is a good idea. Many presbyteries, including my own, allocate some of their additional elder-commissioner slots resulting from the annual rebalancing of minister-elder parity to accomplish just that.
The second misunderstanding implicit in Mr. Jones’ article has to do with per-capita apportionments. “The system” does not in fact say to congregations, “we want you to pay a per-capita that is strictly proportional to your membership.” This form of direct apportionment is not used by every presbytery. Individual presbyteries may choose to say something like this – and most do – but the Form of Government does not require it. The Form of Government only mandates that presbyteries pay per-capita. How the presbyteries come up with the money is up to them.
The General Assembly PJC has ruled that, even in presbyteries that do expect congregations to remit per-capita contributions, those contributions are voluntary. The General Assembly has declared, however, that sessions deciding how to respond to such an appeal ought to consider it “a solemn moral obligation” to comply.
Mr. Jones’ argument evokes echoes of “no taxation without representation.” In fact, that association is wrong on two counts, because per-capita is not taxation, nor is the election of elder commissioners representation. Carl Wilton, stated clerk Presbytery of Momouth
A practice for Christians to embrace from the ‘shackled chains of Islam?’
Posted Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Response to Parker Williamson’s commentary “His Name is Jesus”
In an attempt to counter arrogant self-sufficiency, the prophet Muhammad urged people to “surrender” (islam) their entire being to Allah, the compassionate (al-Rahman) and merciful (al-rahim). When this was done – through the complete the surrender of ego – then, and only then, did a man or a woman become a person of faith.
Maybe there is, in fact, a practice for Christians to embrace from what Parker Williamson calls the “shackled chains of Islam!” The Rev. W. Robert Martin, III First Presbyterian Church of Palo Alto, California
Behavior of session/ministry is outrageous and unacceptable
Posted Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Re: Stockton Presbytery and the homeless
Both the tone of the article and the consistent positions of The Layman about church property issues tell me that you take a bit of pleasure in the situation in which Stockton Presbytery finds itself.
As the former director of a church-based social service center, I found the story appalling. What is outrageous and unacceptable is the behavior of the group of persons who were apparently both the session of Sierra Presbyterian Church and the Sierra Saving Grace Homeless Ministry. First, no respectable homeless ministry would provide space on church lawns in which people camp without basic sanitation services. Allowing people to run into the church building to use facilities is not sufficient. Second, and more importantly, the shelter provided by the community offers much needed rules – that people take their medicines, not practice substance abuse on the premises, and abide by a curfew. Many are homeless precisely because they fail to take medicines for mental illness, because they abuse drugs or alcohol, and because they live chaiotic lives with no structure to them. Exactly why would a homeless ministry discourage people from entering a shelter?
The homeless are not well served by the actions of this supposed ministry. Hopefully the presbytery will have the courage to press folks to move into the shelter, which may not be a religious ministry, but which can obviously far better offer them needed services. Rev. Dr. Anne-Marie Hislop Chicago, Ill.
Simply stating that the FOG isn’t as good as the nFOG is no case at all
Posted Tuesday, February 22, 2011
I am thankful for the irenic tone of Dr. Lowry’s February 17 letter in response to mine. I hope to do the same, while dealing with critical disagreement over ideas and claims.
I appreciate his pointing out in his second paragraph that he claims not to think the present Form of Government (FOG) to be a detriment. He merely considers the proposed new Form of Government (nFOG) not to be a detriment, either – although he gives no reasons to counter my previous arguments for why the nFOG would be troublesome.
Then Lowry goes on to claim hypothetically that while the present FOG can be good enough as is, the nFOG could be better. Indeed, theoretically, it could. However, simply stating that the nFOG might logically have the possibility of being better does nothing to prove that it actually is better. Nor does Lowry’s simply claiming something to be the case (“It wouldn’t be detrimental” or “It could be better”) make it true or prove it to be true. Lowry merely states a personal opinion, and opinions prove nothing.
This second paragraph of Lowry’s letter again proves my observation that those who favor the nFOG are quick to make claims about it being better or shorter or newer or whatever, but they fail to demonstrate that their opinion is anything more than their opinion. Okay, so they think the nFOG superior. Why is that so? Simply stating that the FOG isn’t as good as the nFOG is no case at all. Let’s have some facts, some instances, some verification, some substance to the claims!
When we get to Lowry’s third paragraph, I believe he contradicts his second paragraph. Paragraph two says, “I did not make any claim that the current Form of Government … is itself a detriment.” Paragraph three says: “our current FOG has been reduced to a manual of operations that … does tend to direct us toward the bureaucratic over the prophetic.” So paragraph three says that the current FOG is a detriment, because surely Lowry considers becoming bureaucratic over prophetic to be detrimental. Pure contradiction.
And again, paragraph three makes a vague charge – “directing us toward the bureaucratic” – without any supporting arguments or specifics. Lowry thinks the present FOG does this, and it is his opinion, apparently, that being “prophetic,” whatever that specifically means here, is a good thing. Opinion and opinion, in each case lacking support and specifics.
A reader may simply think, “Well, I respect Dr. Lowry, so whatever he thinks must be good.” Thus Lowry’s personal stature would be his argument. But those of us who don’t know him and haven’t necessarily tracked his history of decision making are left with the sole message that Lowry prefers nFOG, with no proof or support as to why. That’s his opinion, but only an opinion.
Where is the detailed proof that we must upset the whole apple cart to remove a FOG that even Dr. Lowry considers not detrimental to a missional church? What specific reasons – other than opinions or vague, unsubstantiated accusations about the FOG – are there to throw Presbyterian polity into chaos for the foreseeable future? The overriding burden of proof – of building a case for a radical departure – is on those who come along and seek to toss the present FOG.
No such bulletproof case has been made for the nFOG. I have yet to see one substantial and substantiated reason to change horses in the midst of a most calamitous stream. No one has supplied specifics and substance. It has been only claim and opinion so far, and that’s not enough. Vote no on the new Form of Government. Dr. James D. Berkley, pastor Bethel Presbyterian Church, Seattle, Wash.