It is at God’s directive that we adhere to Scripture
Posted Friday, September 30, 2005
Perhaps Mr. Moe should try reading his Bible to understand that it is at God’s directive that we adhere to Scripture. It is God that I desire to please not secular contingents who might be offended that a Christian Church follows Christ’s views and not the worlds.
Judy Brann
To say that the circle is wide is deceitful and the world deserves better
Posted Friday, September 30, 2005
Shame on Prof. March. I wonder if he’s feeling that millstone around his neck! It’s not just verses like John 14:6 that beg us to follow only Jesus; it’s Scripture in its entirety. If one were to study the whole of Scripture and contrast that with other faiths, you would have to, must conclude that Christianity is different. To follow Christ is simply not just another path to God. Following through Islam one is led to follow rules and perform good deeds (the law), which we know cannot be accomplished. Christ showed the world that it is only through him that we can receive mercy and grace to approach the Father in heaven. No one can attain perfection, sinlessness and therefore we need Jesus, who was and is sinlessness. The same can be said of Buddhism, Hinduism. With these, one’s salvation is based on their acts of goodness. Well, we know man and he can never measure up. That’s why we need Christ. To say that the circle is wide is deceitful and the world deserves better.
To water down the gospel, as Prof. March has done with his thesis, is to slap non-believers in the face and deny them the blessing of knowing the entire Good News of Jesus – that salvation is free and there is nothing you need to do to receive it, no trips to Mecca, no pilgrimages in India, no self-flagellations. That’s why it is so hard to grasped. Our self-centered, “I can do it on my own” mentality must be humbled. Christianity is different. It’s not like anything else.
Barbara Moody Sparta, Ill.
Moe follows in the footsteps of Kirkpatrick
Posted Friday, September 30, 2005
Ken Moe continues Kirkpatrick’s insistence that the PCUSA’s losses are mostly to the “secular culture” and not because the denomination is becoming more and more secular. Oh, he doesn’t say it in quite those words but read him carefully!
Fred Edwards Ex-elder, ex-PCUSA
We all make good and bad decisions’
Posted Friday, September 30, 2005
Elenora Giddings Ivory claims that “Women are good moral decision-makers.” If that is so, one might surmise the same might be said of men (unless one is a sexist in reverse of the normal application). But if either or both are true, what does that say about the first tenet of TULIP? Human experience tells us that we all make good and bad decisions. As an undergraduate professor rightly commented, we are a mixed bag. And if that is so, that is why God set moral parameters rather than leave it to the individual. Similarly, the Reformed tradition has also maintained that right belief, doctrine and faith practice is more rightly discerned by the whole as opposed to the individual. If these parameters are set aside in terms of abortion (as opposed to other issues) or women’s rights (as opposed to men’s), I would like to see how the argument(s) would be made.
Rev. Steven L. Seng First Presbyterian Church , Wellsburg, W.Va.
Which tenets of New Wineskins are not palatable to Moe and those like him?
Posted Friday, September 30, 2005
In Ken Moe’s report to the Grand Canyon Presbytery, he states that not all of the New Wineskin tenets are considered essential to large portions of ordained officers in the PCUSA. However, he fails to specify what tenets are not palatable to those like him who “understand the world, the Scriptures and God with far more nuances and complexities” than those simple-minded people who subscribe to the New Wineskin documents. With what specific tenets doe he take issue? Perhaps its because he knows that his views are not supported by the Scripture.
Samuel J. Orr III Beaver, Pa.
How much of our Reformed faith must we compromise to maintain ‘unity?’
Posted Friday, September 30, 2005
I will do everything I know how to prevent congregations from leaving the Presbytery of Grand Canyon. But if any should decide by proper vote to depart from the PCUSA, let there be no secession without compensation! I pledge to work hard to protect the historic mission of this presbytery from the economic ravages of schism.” – Ken Moe, executive presbyter, Presbytery of the Grand Canyon
Mr. Moe, what is the “historic mission” which you pledge to protect?
The task force, Moe pointed out, says the denomination “‘should make every effort to prevent schism.'”
Mr. Moe, how much of our Reformed faith must we compromise in order to maintain this “unity?”
“Which of these different approaches seems more extreme?” he asks. “The Layman’s call for strict doctrinal subscription to rein in what it paints as a ‘culture of unbelief’ or the PUP task force’s call to respect the integrity of people with differing beliefs and appreciate the greater areas of mutual agreement?”
Mr. Moe, people are not attracted to churches that don’t know what they believe. Since abandoning our historic Confession in 1967 we have lost nearly as many members as we have today, including the merger with the PCUS. The liberal apostasy that has defined the PCUSA since 1967 is driving members away. If that isn’t a schism, it is certainly death by attrition.
Fighting for unity without fighting for purity is an exercise in futility.
Woe to the Church which does not equip its members with the sound doctrines of TULIP!
James E. Tuckett The Old Gray Dog
The choice after pregnancy is between doing the right or the wrong thing
Posted Friday, September 30, 2005
The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice has made some statement in their press conference that are inaccurate and, well, outright heresy. Lobbyist Elenora Giddings Ivory declared, “God is only Lord of conscience, not the state or church.” Excuse me, but God is Lord of all. Psalm 19 says The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof. And all Christian denominations claim Jesus Christ is the head of the Church. And we also understand that all civil authorities come from God. Ivory also claims that it is uncertain when life begins. Life began when God breathed life into Adam and all subsequent life since then begins at conception. The most notable was when the Holy Spirit came upon the Virgin Mary.
RCRC President Carlton Veazey stated that, “To have a child is to have a sacred choice but to not have a child can be a sacred choice.” This is true, but the choice to not have a child precedes pregnancy. Once conception occurs, we are talking about a life that has begun and the taking of that life is murder. The choice after pregnancy is a choice between doing the right thing or the wrong thing. An unplanned pregnancy can be a tragic thing, especially in the case of rape or incest, but there are more humane ways of resolving the undesirable: it’s called adoption. In many areas of moral dilemma, it becomes necessary to set aside one good for the sake of a higher good. Right and rights are not synonymous. A woman has rights; the unborn have rights; but protecting the life of those who have no voice is the right thing to do. Contrary to what Veazey has said (“To be religious, as we see it, is to be pro-choice.”) to be faithful to what God has ordained is to be pro-life.
I wanted to rip my garments and sit in the dust when I read the excerpts from the CFC booklet, “Sex in the HIV/AIDS Era: a Guide for Catholics.” Apparently the booklet denies adultery as sin. Again the tired and frustrating cry of “I have a right” … (here, to have sex with anyone of my own choosing.) Herein lies the core of the matter in the whole moral dilemma of our culture: The individual choice, the “rights” of people to choose, that the ultimate good to be desired, expected, and pursued is that which satisfies the individual. How can we claim God to be supreme when his laws, his decrees, his ways are secondary to our laws, our decrees, our ways? Abortion is the number one blight on our human record. It grieves me deeply that the institutional church has/is buying into this treacherous sin of infantcide in the name of justice. We will become accountable when we are faced with the culmination of God’s judgment.
Rev. George F. Major Silex Presbyterian Church, Silex, Missouri
When did the roles of church and society become reversed?
Posted Friday, September 30, 2005
In response to Winnebago Presbytery’s opposition to same-sex marriage ban:
One would think that the church would be at the forefront in proclaiming moral truths in a promiscuous society, yet in this case society desires moral truths in defiance of a promiscuous church. When did the roles become reversed?
Steve Rollins San Diego
Don’t listen to windbags that pontificate their views as truth
Posted Thursday, September 29, 2005
Who are these windbags that pontificate their views as truth – those who abandon faith (if they ever had any)? Don’t listen to them. Their pathway leads to ruin and destruction. They have no power or position. Deluded, they dare to challenge the Lord God Almighty!
Paul McKay
PCUSA must show commitment to ‘Great Commission’ instead of politics
Posted Thursday, September 29, 2005
As the article “Mission funding declines prompt proposal for 173 PCUSA fundraisers” implies, trust is indeed the issue. Why should we give unrestricted missions money to this denomination? Why should we trust the upper levels of this denomination that are so out-of-touch with our congregations? Why should we trust the upper levels of this denomination that have made politically-fueled decisions that so obviously disregard Scripture? Why should we trust a General Assembly Council, which took 5 percent from designated missions giving this year to finance who-knows-what?
Yes, in March or April of this year, the GAC notified churches that gave designated gifts to ECOs (Extra Commitment Opportunities) that they had been taking away 5 percent of those “designated” gifts since January 2005. Nice way to give that communication to us in advance – thanks. I have been told that they only notified churches who gave a certain amount or larger. So, we have to wonder, to what political agenda does that 5 percent go? Does it help pay the salaries of the Washington Office to lobby congress for gay rights and abortion rights? Will it fund a new “mission trip” to meet with Hezbollah terrorist leaders? Maybe it will fund another “Sophia” meeting at the next GA? And you wonder why missions giving is going down. All I know is that “designated gifts” should mean just that – designated gifts. Taking away from designated giving is taking food out of the mouths of the hungry, and taking the gospel away from a child who needs it.
It is time to make missions a priority in this denomination. Actions speak louder than words. This denomination must show – by our actions – that we rely on the Bible as God’s word. Until congregations see – by our actions – that we are more motivated by Jesus’ mandate to fulfill the “Great Commission” than we are by politics, then we will continue to have that trust problem. Until then, I believe this denomination may itself be a mission field.
Kevin T. Smith New Hanover Presbyterian Church , Mechanicsville, Va.
Believe by faith and faith alone is a religious ideology, not scientific proof
Posted Thursday, September 29, 2005
Apparently various anti-intelligent design commentators and letter writers conveniently “forget” that the very foundation of evolutionary belief has never been proven, replicated or explained by so-called intelligent evolutionary scientists who insist that we simply accept by belief and faith that what they say is true: That life came from nonlife by accident and random chance.
Supposedly nonlife begot life simply by accident and random chance, but no one has yet been able to scientifically explain how it was done, prove it could be done, and/or replicate the “simple” feat on purpose.
It’s one thing to look at buried fossils and make up stories as to how one set of fossils relates to another set of fossils and/or to living species; it’s quite another thing to insist that life began without an Intelligent Designer (God) simply by accident and random chance when the intelligent scientific community apparently isn’t smart enough to figure out how it was done and replicate the feat in an attempt to show how “easy” it can be done and therefore “prove” that it could have been done accidentally millions or billions of years ago.
Of course the reason the intelligent scientific community can’t figure out how life began from nonlife is simply because it isn’t “easy” at all; it is very complex; too complex, in fact, for evolutionary scientists to do it on purpose.
The “simplest” known lifeform, a one-cell organism, is highly complex, having something like 3 million bits of genetic code in its DNA/genetic make-up. It is known that some bits of code must be in its exact and precise location on the DNA molecule, otherwise a harmful, extremely harmful or even a fatal “error” will occur and the lifeform will not function properly, reproduce itself, or even live.
3 million bits of genetic code. For the “simplest” of known lifeforms. A one-cell organism. Keep in mind what that means. Apparently there doesn’t exist now, nor is there any proof that a “simpler” lifeform – say one of 1 million, 100,000, 1,000 or even 100 bits – has ever existed from which the “complex” 3 million-bit “simple” organism evolved from.
That is, a 3 million-bit organism seems to be the “lowest common denominator” in life.
Given that number, is there any wonder why our intelligent evolutionary scientists can’t figure out an “easy” way for non-intelligence to accidentally and by random chance put 3 million (or 300,000) bits of genetic information together exactly and precisely as in a jigsaw puzzle to make nonliving particles come together and live?
Heck, our scientists have yet to take 3 million bits of nonliving code and put them together on purpose and produce life from nonlife.
As I said, it’s one thing to find buried fossils and make up stories about buried fossils and how they relate to one another and/or to living species.
It’s something else entirely to insist we buy into their idea that life came from nonlife accidentally and by random chance when all they have done so far is to ask us to believe by faith what they say (that life came from nonlife by accident and random chance) and not by what they have scientifically proven could have happened.
I’m sorry, but “believe by faith and faith alone” is a religious ideology, not scientific proof. And I have my own religious beliefs, thank you; I don’t need to be indoctrinated into the evolutionists’ religious beliefs.
Robert E. Forman Lakewood, Colo.
If God’s plan included many paths, why did he send Jesus?
Posted Thursday, September 29, 2005
Many comments of PCUSA personnel and seminary professors can be safely ignored but their flirtation with pluralism merits our attention.
If God’s plan includes many paths to salvation as some say, why did God send Jesus? Why was he not satisfied with Buddhism or Islam or Judaism or some other path that wouldn’t require the crucifixion? How cruel to send your son to die a horrible death just to open up an unnecessary and redundant path to salvation. Yet, supposed scholars say that Christianity is right for them but proclaim the equality of other religious views. This implies that they have chosen from the many choices to accept a view of God that has him acting with unnecessary harshness against his own Son. If they truly believe there is another way and that salvation is possible without the cross then that other way would be a better way and they should rush to embrace it. Sound logic rejects this view and it rejects them. We can either believe Christ is who he says he is and his sacrifice for our salvation was the only possible way or we must hold that the New Testament is errant to the point of being useless. You are in Christ as Biblically revealed or you are not. And if you are not, fair enough. But intellectual honesty requires that to be a Christian you must accept that salvation is impossible apart from Christ. There is no middle ground.
John Cowan Cartersville, Ga.
PCUSA has said there are some jobs to big for the Body of Christ to undertake
Posted Thursday, September 29, 2005
Lou. S. Nowasielski [letter to the editor, posted September 28, 2005] wrote that “the little 5 – Cliff, Griswold, Thomas, Hanson and Winkler – in their infinite wisdom, seem to think the new church is the federal government.” As I discovered a few months ago, there are a lot more than five who think that way. I posted the following in my blog in July:
Looking through a 2004 lobbying handbook published by the PCUSA Washington Office (“Christian and Citizen”), I found this astonishing statement on page 16:
“… General Assembly policy has consistently and clearly stated that government has the primary responsibility for caring for the poor, along with the private sector: The 1997 General Assembly stated (and the 1999 General Assembly reaffirmed), ‘that while the church, voluntary organizations, business and government must work cooperatively to address the needs of poor persons and communities, the government must assume the primary role for providing direct assistance for the poor'” (Minutes, 1997, p. 553).
“The General Assembly has noted that the private sector is incapable of caring for the needy on its own. The 1996 General Assembly asserted that ‘churches and charities, including many Presbyterian congregations and related organizations, have responded generously to growing hunger but do not have the capacity to replace public programs'” (Minutes, 1996, p.784).
I have been unable to locate the General Assembly minutes for either 1996 or 1997 and so have not verified that this “policy” actually exists. The Washington Office has shown a willingness to ignore or distort policies of the General Assembly in order to promote its private political objectives; this could be another example. However, the citations of the relevant Minutes complete with page numbers lead me to believe that, in this instance, the Washington Office is telling the truth.
What Bible are these folks reading? Perhaps there is a new translation that portrays Jesus himself as a lobbyist rather than a high priest. Here are some passages we might expect to see in such a Bible:
- (Matthew 25:40) “I tell you the truth, whatever you lobbied the government to do for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you lobbied the government to do for me.”
- (Luke 10:33-34) “… a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and said “You poor man! Wait here and I’ll contact the Medicaid office and see if there’s any way they can help you!”
- (Acts 10:2) “He [Cornelius] and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he lobbied generously on behalf of those in need and prayed to God regularly.”
No, there is no translation or paraphrase of the Bible that says such things. God calls Presbyterians to compassion. We are to feed the hungry, give the thirsty something to drink, invite the stranger in, clothe the needy, and visit the sick and the prisoner (Matthew 25:34-40). We are to aid the bleeding man by the side of the road (Luke 10:29-37). We are to be devout and God-fearing, giving generously (Acts 10:1-2). These are acts of compassion.
Throwing in the towel, giving up, turning it over to the government and demanding government programs are not acts of compassion, they are acts of surrender and convenience. The PCUSA has given up and said that there are some jobs to big for the Body of Christ to undertake, that God is unable or unwilling to equip his Church to do what he has clearly called it to do. Besides, getting the government to do the dirty work leaves more time and resources for lobbying, protesting, organizing boycotts, schmoozing with like-minded secular leaders and spouting pious excuses.
It is difficult to imagine a policy more rooted in left-wing political ideology and less rooted in the teachings of the Bible than “the government has the primary responsibility for caring for the poor.” Publicly stating such drivel is a measure of how far – and how willfully – the PCUSA has wandered from its calling.
Steve Jones, elder Kokomo, Ind.
Those who ‘create space’ for homosexual practice are the true schismatics
Posted Thursday, September 29, 2005
Ken Moe, executive presbyter of Grand Canyon Presbytery, seems to have done what many institutionalists in the PCUSA have done. He has confused the “earthen vessel” for the “treasure.” His address to his presbytery, in which he plays the race card (his “concern” for Native American congregations), makes it clear to me what he does not believe in anything resembling what he calls “strict” subscriptionism – a term, by the way, that means something else in the PCA. However, I cannot but wonder what he actually does believe in, aside from the institutions of the denomination. He certainly believes in his brand of “inclusivity” which will, if he has his way, exclude any conservatives from keeping the properties that they and their forebears established, long before the 22-year-old Presbyterian Church (USA) came into existence, if those congregations cannot tolerate sexual immorality.
Moe states: “Religious doctrines are not facts. Ideally, they are edifying guides to the faith. They are important but not impervious to reform. Indeed, Christians have been proclaiming, disputing and changing doctrines for two millennia.”
So, then, is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ a “fact,” an actuality? Is the bodily resurrection a “fact,” or does Moe suggest to us that all of these doctrines are simply mere symbols of some ethereal, religious sensibility that is beyond naming? Yes, Mr. Moe, there has been doctrinal development over time. But to tolerate outright denials of the contents of the Apostles and Nicene Creeds is certainly not a Christian virtue, nor in keeping with the development of the Christian faith. Yes, there has been doctrinal development, but in the moral teachings of the Church (Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox) there has never been anything but the teaching that God created sex for marriage, which means one man and one woman. On this note, those who would change the teachings of the church, who would “create space” for the practices of homosexuality (or, for that matter, for heterosexuality outside the covenant of marriage) are the true schismatics. They have broken faith with the church of Jesus Christ, emptied the earthen vessels of their treasure, and now hold up these clay pots as the object of their devotion.
One thing that Ken Moe said, however, that I can agree with: A storm will occur in Birmingham next year. May God raise up a faithful people in the PCUSA to stand for his Word.
Rev. Walter L. Taylor Statesville, N.C.
Moe’s report brings recollections of Marx’s critique of the Church of England
Posted Thursday, September 29, 2005
Thank you for bringing to our attention the “Executive Presbyter’s Report to the Presbyter of Grand Canyon” by Ken Moe. After reading the full text of Moe’s address, I was struck by what concerned him most. He stated that any specificity of theological beliefs is to be avoided for it leads to “heresy trials and purges.” Yet he had strong words for anyone who cuts off the money flow to his presbytery saying, “If any should decide by proper vote to depart from the PCUSA, let there be no secession without compensation! I pledge to work hard to protect the historic mission of this presbytery from the economic ravages of schism.”
After reading his address, I was probably not the only one who recalled Karl Marx’s critique of the Church of England:
“The English established church will more readily pardon an attack on 38 of its 39 articles (of religion) than on 1/39th of its income.”
Elliott Scott, pastor Heritage Presbyterian Church, Houston, Texas