Israel stance is disappointing
Posted Monday, December 20, 2010
It grieves me that my denomination has taken such a one-sided stance on the Middle East. The charge of “occupation” usually means that any Israeli presence is illegitimate and should be pushed back in pre-1948. In other words, Israel should not exist at all. Even more shocking is the complacence over Hezbollah and Hamas deliberately targeting peaceful civilians in rocket attacks and suicide bombings. Small wonder people have left the Presbyterian Church in droves. This stance will not much harm Israel but it will destroy the Presbyterian Church. As one small example, share prices of Caterpillar have soared since the Presbyterian Church started demanding divestiture. Greg Scandlen Waynesboro, Pa.
OpEd title not the one SWC intended
Posted Monday, December 20, 2010
Regarding the story in The Layman earlier today entitled “PCUSA-Israel conflict heats up.” Hopefully your staff knows that the Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC) writers of the Wall Street Journal OpEd did not intend to have the title that appeared on their OpEd. On Dec. 2, 2010, within minutes of the OpEd appearing on the WSJ’s website, I alerted Rabbi Adlerstein by telephone to the appearance article and the trouble that the title was likely to cause. He agreed and before the end of the business day, he had sent out an alert message by e-mail to the Presbyterian elders and pastors who had been working in our ad hoc group known as “Presbyterians for Middle East Peace” explaining how the title of the OpEd was not of the SWC’s choosing. The Huffington Post response is similar to the message he sent out.
In my opinion, it has been primarily our theologically liberal Presbyterian “friends of Israel” who have taken the greatest offense with the appearance of the SWC article, some even after they understood that the title of the OpEd was not the one recommended by the SWC. I wish that these same Presbyterians who are quick to criticize the SWC would take more offense at the outrageous posts that the PCUSA affiliated Israel/Palestine Mission Network have made on their website and the websites of anti-Israel activist websites. Gary J. Green Communications Coordinator, Presbyterians for Middle East Peace
Hymnal survey is flawed
Posted Thursday, December 16, 2010
I tried to complete the PCUSA survey regarding a new proposed Presbyterian Hymnal, I suspect it is a system as completely flawed as so many other projects from PCUSA. In attempting to complete the survey, there was a question regarding features in an electronic worship planning tool PCUSA thinks we should have. Since there was no box to check as a feature of interest, I left it blank. Funny thing, the survey won’t let you complete it unless you check something NOT of interest to my local church.
I said the system by PCUSA was flawed, it is my attempt to more tactful and as to what I really think about their project, I’d be foolish to put it into print.
In His service,
Richard Conway Morganton, N.C.
Misleading statement?
Posted Monday, December 13, 2010
In his Dec. 9, 2010 letter, “Reporters should leave their prejudices on ‘the cutting room floor,’” Jack G Shaheen, PhD, contends it is misleading to call a “boycott Israel campaign” an “anti-Israel campaign.”
Is that any more misleading than calling “pro-choice” (pro-abortion) “pro-death?” Paul Hubert
Reporters should leave their prejudices on ‘the cutting room floor’
Posted Thursday, December 9, 2010
Thank you for your first-rate issue of November, 2010, and for all your fine efforts to bring people together.
I was taken aback, however, by Parker T Williamson’s blatant biases which surface throughout his page 2 essay, biases that were directed at Palestinians in general and the Rev. Naim Ateek in particular.
For example, one stale myth that he advanced reads like a PR statement that came directly from the ADL. He discredits those Palestinians who continue suffering under Israeli occupation, writing that “Israel’s neighbors have repeatedly declared their intentions to destroy the Jewish state;” the reality, in fact, as Williamson knows, is that the vast majority of Arabs seek peace with Israel.
Also, the blurb above the article, “Anti-Israel campaign … ” is false and misleads your readers.
A more honest and accurate title reflecting Rev. Ateek’s comments would be “Boycott-Israel campaign … ”
I sincerely hope that the next time you publish an essay about any and all those devout Presbyterians sincerely seeking peace in the region, your reporters will leave their prejudices on “the cutting room floor.”
As Mark Twain reminds us, “The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and the lighting bug.”
Jack G Shaheen, PhD
What’s next?
Posted Thursday, December 9, 2010
Re: Presbytery vote on G-6.0106b
What else is going to be eliminated from the Bible? If it happens, I and many others are gone.
Bob Wardrop Inverness, Fla.
Debate: Achtemeier’s pro was silly and Loudon’s con was weak
Posted Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Re: PUP task force members debate Amendment 10-A
I thought Mark Achtemeier’s pro on Amendment 10-A was silly and Mike Loudon’s con was weak.
How naïve can you be to insist that passing 10-A will bring peace to the church. Achtemeier must keep to his seminary study and relate only to the “upper” levels of the church. He’s for local option. If our system allowed every congregation to vote on the ordination of homosexuals, it would have been firmly settled long ago – definitely not! Case closed.
Amendment 10-A contains a lot of ambiguous blather, which is what the pros want. And Achtemeier enlarges on it with a lot of fluffy statements.
He talks about erring on the side of grace. Does he think we are the ones to dispense grace? Now that many have dispensed with God’s Word on this subject, they apparently think they are the ones to decide right and wrong, taking of course their cue from the culture.
This “scrupling” is so utterly absurd one wonders where we are keeping our heads when one may scruple perversion.
Yes, this homosexual conflict has, as Achtemeier points out the obvious, “cost the church a huge price in time and energy and money and good will.” Has this ivory tower fellow not noticed the more than 2-million members who have gone elsewhere, to churches that have an agenda centered on the foundations of our faith?
One more word on Loudon’s stand: I found it soft and pious. David Davis Ellwood City, Pa.
Mainline Protestantism crumples before the onslaught of today’s militant atheism
Posted Monday, December 6, 2010
Look at all the churches that are bailing out of the PCUSA. It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone; the current situation has been brewing for years, actually decades.
The gay issue has proven to be the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. The real problem is the state of mainline Protestantism, of which the PCUSA is a part. Dinesh D’Souza, in his book What’s So Great About Christianity?, describes it as a missionary in reverse; instead of representing the church to the world, it represents the world to the church. I myself would describe it as a halfway house for those on the journey from belief to unbelief.
Another book I’ve been reading is The God Delusion by celebrity atheist Richard Dawkins. I found it to be surprisingly, unnecessarily vituperative. In a world that mirrored Dawkins, it would not be the Age of Aquarius; it would look more like the Gulag Archipelago. What’s this got to do with the PCUSA? Simply this: It has been giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Mainline Protestantism crumples before the onslaught of today’s militant atheism. Meanwhile, Dawkins is as contemptuous of the liberal Christians as he is the traditionalists.
My prayer is that the witness of Christ’s Body will be upheld throughout this debacle.
Larry Brown African Bible College, Lilongwe, Malawi
Ruling in Timberridge case great news
Posted Friday, December 3, 2010
This is great news! I am so happy for my fellow Georgia congregation. I hope this ruling helps pave the way for my Atlanta church to escape the PCUSA! Mike Montgomery Atlanta, Ga.
nFOG’s opening statement is an intentional imposition of Universalist doctrine
Posted Friday, December 3, 2010
I am very appreciative of Carol Shanholtzer’s letter [posted Dec. 2, 2010] about nFOG on The Layman Online. I am heartened to see some people reading it critically and carefully and asking questions that must be asked. It is too bad that these questions cannot be answered at this point in the game. We are now presented with a straight up or down vote in each presbytery.
Allow me to report on events in Tampa Bay today. The Presbytery meeting today saw nFOG brought to a vote. The process was well thought out and well executed. Every single commissioner received the GAC produced study materials and the full publication being voted on (nFOG). One of the authors of the document (and one of its greatest advocates) Paul Hooker, was present to explain the document and to promote it. He was given more than an hour and a half to make the case for passage.
When it came time for the question, the moderator asked how many commissioners had read the document. An optimistic estimate would be that a bare 50 percent answered affirmatively that they had read it. Then after being reminded he should ask for discussion, the moderator opened the floor for us to discuss this incredibly important decision for the future of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
I was the only person to speak.
I spoke against its passage on a variety of grounds – not the least of which being that it reverses the polarity of our governance and makes this a “top down” hierarchical church. Under nFOG we become a church in which the session of the particular church is no longer empowered to advise and develop and oversee the mission efforts of the congregation. That will now be done at the presbytery level or higher.
There are dozens of other errors, fallacies and imposed doctrinal changes in the nFOG. As a Reformed practitioner, I am appalled that the very first, opening statement of this document is a blatant and intentional imposition of Universalist doctrine. It says in F-1.01: “The good news of the Gospel is that the Triune God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit – creates, redeems, sustains, rules and transforms all things and all people.” [Emphasis added] So much for the Scriptural and historic Reformed doctrines of election and limited (or particular) atonement.
Still in the “Foundations” section, F1.0403 changes ordination to particular ministry in the church from a call of God upon particular individuals into a “right” for any member – regardless of “… race, ethnicity, age, sex, disability, geography or theological conviction.” [Emphasis added] Seriously, that is what it says: “… regardless of theological conviction.” Apparently, under nFOG, theology does not matter and there is no reason not to ordain an agnostic, a universalist, a gnostic or an atheist (That should make those folks in San Antonio very happy).
As I said, I was the only person to speak to this amendment at all. After having voiced my concerns, we voted – the 50 percent who had read it and the 50 percent who had not. The amendment passed, 98 to 54 after a contested voice vote.
Here is the point. Our existing Book of Order is cumbersome, unwieldy, legalistic and badly in need of replacement. However this nFOG is not the answer. It will expand the Universalist influence in this church, it will impose a top down hierarchical dominance, and it will – inevitably – contribute to the burgeoning disunity, distrust and desertion of increasing numbers of congregations. By the way, it will also eliminate due process for ministers and congregations in conflict (G3.0307).
It is too late in Tampa. Now it’s up to the rest of you. What can you do about it? Get yourself to the presbytery meeting as commissioner. Read the documents critically and completely. Go and vote intelligently. Vote from a position of informed knowledge rather than contented ignorance.
Rev. Jim Yearsley Tampa, Fla.
Writer expresses concerns about nFOG
Posted Thursday, December 2, 2010
I read something in the November Layman that I think may give people an inaccurate sense of security about the nFOG. It says “The voluntary nature of per capita is preserved in the nFOG.”
Although I know that was the intent of the 219th General Assembly Committee in the amendments they made, I personally will be very surprised if per capita remains voluntary if the nFOG is adopted. My concern is based in the nFOG removing the “separate and independent” standing of governing bodies, on which the current per-capita ruling is based, and in the nFOG’s hierarchical system emphasizing the “unity and interdependence” of governing bodies. The real problem is, when the same phrases and sentences currently used are placed in a new context, I see no guarantee that a body making a future AI (especially a General Assembly) would feel compelled to retain the current interpretation.
This is a manifestation of the ambiguity that characterizes the nFOG. One can take selected provisions and make a case that payment of per capita by sessions is voluntary and one can take other selected provisions and make the case that it is mandatory, based on the unity and interdependence of governing bodies that are only distinct. None of us can really know how the nFOG will be authoritatively interpreted regarding per capita.
I hope I am wrong. But I think it is more accurate to say that we don’t know whether payment of per capita by sessions will be voluntary or not, rather than giving people the assurance it will be voluntary and therefore making approval of the nFOG a lower-risk action than I think it really is. What do you think?
Specifics documenting statements above:
(1) The current PJC decision making payment of per capita voluntary for sessions is rooted in the current G-9.0103, which describes governing bodies as “separate and independent.”
Current G-9.0103:
All governing bodies of the church are united by the nature of the church and share with one another responsibilities, rights, and powers as provided in this Constitution. The governing bodies are separate and independent, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate governing body. The jurisdiction of each governing body is limited by the express provisions of the Constitution, with powers not mentioned being reserved to the presbyteries, and with the acts of each subject to review by the next higher governing body. [emphasis added]
In the remedial case which determined that per capita contributions by sessions are voluntary, Central v. Long Island (Remedial Case 204-5) in 1992, the GAPJC included the following its decision, with a specific reference to G-9.0103 included in what they wrote:
These issues go to the heart of our Presbyterian system of church governance. Our system is unique. It neither imposes decisions from the top down nor allows particular churches to operate in a vacuum. … While our Book of Order speaks in terms of “higher governing bodies,” we acknowledge that our system contemplates a partnership of church governance in which each governing body has responsibilities, exercises authority, and carries out mission in particular areas (G-9.0103).
(2) When that sentence from the current G-9.0103 was put in the nFOG (and it appears twice in the nFOG, once in the Foundations section and once in the Form of Government section), the words “separate and independent” were removed and replaced with the vague term “distinct.”
nFOG F-3.0203:
All councils of the church are united by the nature of the church and share with one another responsibilities, rights, and powers as provided in this Constitution. The councils are distinct, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate council. [emphasis added] nFOG G-3.0101:
All councils of the church are united by the nature of the church and share with one another responsibilities, rights and powers as provided in this Constitution. The councils are distinct, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church. [emphasis added]
(3) This is an excerpt from one of the resource papers on the Coalition website that shows the nFOG wording and comments on the per capita issue:
Will per capita and Other Contributions by Sessions to the Denomination Continue to Be Voluntary?
Clearly it was the intention of the Assembly committee that all monetary contributions to the denomination continue to be voluntary under the nFOG, as they are under the current Form of Government and its Authoritative Interpretations by the GAPJC. The Assembly committee amended the proposed wording of G-3.0202f with the purpose of making those contributions voluntary by changing the wording so it reads as follows (wording that was stricken is shown below in bold and wording that was added is shown in italics):
It is of particular importance that sessions … send to presbytery and General Assembly requested financial contributions, statistics, and other information according to the requirements of those bodies, as well as voluntary financial contributions.
A problem arises, however, because that is not the only nFOG provision that deals with governing bodies and money. nFOG section G-3.0106 “Administration of Mission,” contains the following paragraphs (wording added by the Assembly committee is shown in italics):
The funding of mission similarly demonstrates the unity and interdependence of the church. The failure of any part of the church to participate in the stewardship of the mission of the whole church diminishes that unity and interdependence. All mission funding should enable the church to give effective witness in the world to God’s new creation in Jesus Christ, and should strengthen the church’s witness to the mission of God.
Each council above the session shall prepare a budget for its operating expenses, including administrative personnel, and may fund it with a per capita apportionment among the particular congregations within its bounds. Presbyteries are responsible for raising their own funds and for raising and timely transmission of per capita funds to their respective synods and the General Assembly. Presbyteries may direct per capita apportionments to sessions within their bounds, but in no case shall the authority of the session to direct its benevolences be compromised.
Again, the intention of the Assembly committee in amending the draft document it received is clear. The committee’s intent was that sessions continue to have complete control over how their congregation’s money is used. But how will the provisions be authoritatively interpreted in the future by the GA and the GAPJC? The material quoted above came to the GA as one paragraph, but at the recommendation of a Form of Government Task Force member, it was divided into two paragraphs as shown. The first paragraph emphasizes the “interdependence” of the church in “funding of mission,” but it is unclear whether that must be the denomination’s mission or the mission of the worldwide church of Christ.
The second paragraph spells out that the session’s authority to direct its “benevolences” shall not be compromised, but the document does not define “benevolences.” “Benevolences” is the term in the current Form of Government which has been authoritatively interpreted, in the context of the current Form of Government, to mean all of a congregation’s funds. The problem is that when the same sentences and phrases occur in the context of our current Form of Government, they have been authoritatively interpreted to mean that the “separate and independent” session has complete responsibility and authority over how all of a congregation’s funds are used. The new wording is in the context of an entirely new Foundations section and an entirely new Form of Government section in which governing bodies are no longer “separate and independent,” but only are “distinct” and are related in a hierarchical manner. The nFOG contains wording in a new context, therefore there is no basis for assuming that the previous Authoritative Interpretations will continue to be in effect. It will be up to a future authoritative interpretation by a GA or GAPJC to determine what these provisions mean.
Carol Shanholtzer Minneapolis, Minn.
Those advocating changing the rules are committing the sin of leading others astray
Posted Thursday, December 2, 2010
There is continuing debate on PCUSA’s sexual standards and proposed rule changes thereto. I fail to see why there should even be a debate at all. Do those who seek change not believe that the Scriptures were written by those who were inspired by God to do so and that they meant what they said? The Scriptural position on sexual behavior is quite plain. Any deviation from it is sin, pure and simple. Those who would teach otherwise do not belong in the pulpit. Maybe that is harsh, but if you do not believe what a Church teaches, you should not be in it. The Savior is gracious to forgive sin, but that forgiveness requires repentance, which in turn involves turning from the willful commission of the sin. To put it bluntly, those who advocate changing the rules are committing the grievous sin of leading others astray. Is it any wonder that the PCUSA is losing membership?
Carl Davis Brookneal, Va.
I strongly urge the BOP’s special committee to seek expert advice
Posted Thursday, December 2, 2010
After reading the article stating that the Board of Pensions (BOP) has formed a special committee to consider the General Assembly’s recommendation, I did some further research into the backgrounds the various members have in the employee benefits field. I was disappointed to learn that not one member has expertise in either employee benefits or employee benefit law. The BOP is organized in a very unique fashion (as acknowledged by Mr. Maggs on page 14), and consequently the employee benefits issues and ramifications raised by the GA’s recommendation are complex. Having spent over 45 years in the employee benefits field I strongly urge the special committee seek expert advice in formulating its recommendations and writing a report. Ignoring expert input in this complicated area could easily lead the BOP down a road on which it does not want to go. Dudley Dennison Fincke Broomall, Pa.
What is writer’s definition of immigrant?
Posted Thursday, December 2, 2010
Nikola Payne [letter to the editor, posted Nov. 30, 2010] wants to extend mercy to “immigrants.” What is her definition – real immigrants who follow the laws of their desired country or illegal aliens who disregard those laws and expropriate whatever they can? Methinks she is pushing her left wing political agenda, unless she can demonstrate otherwise. Fred Edwards
The cost for Presbyterian churches to remain faithful: $1,000 a head
Posted Wednesday, December 1, 2010
After reading about Fair Oaks Presbyterian Church in Sacramento, Calif., I now know what it costs for Presbyterian churches to remain faithful to their God-given beliefs: about $1,000 a head. With about 1,000 members and at a cost of roughly a million dollars, that’s roughly $1,000 for every member to pay.
It’s an amazing thing when Christians must pay $1,000 apiece to their denomination in order to practice enduring Christian morality without bureaucratic harassment. Tragic, actually.
James D. Berkley Bellevue, Wash.