It isn’t worth reading theological affirmations since they only bind its authors
Posted Wednesday, August 31, 2005
A brilliant political move. Lacking the votes to change the constitution, the advocates of radical individualism in the church have discovered that any General Assembly can in effect nullify that constitution. A theology professor may not see local option in this; a lawyer or political scientist would see nothing else.
It’s not worth even reading the report’s theological affirmations, since they don’t bind anybody but its authors – and it binds them only for the time being. They are the smokescreen out of which looms the enemy dreadnaught.
Dan Reuter
Task Force’s authoritative interpretation sanctions, strengthens status quo
Posted Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Hooray for me! I have waded through all 1,551 lines of the report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church (TTF).
I wish I could say, “Hooray for the TTF!” Unfortunately, the best TTF has to offer our denomination – after almost four years of concentrated, concerted discernment – is an invitation to continue in that very mode ad infinitum: “This entire report has as its premise that a season of discernment is due in the church” (Line 1503).
What do TTF members suppose we have been doing over these last four, more like 40, years?
How long, O Lord! How long must your people be held in Babylonian captivity? How long must we languish in accommodation and service to the prevailing culture? When will we be freed to claim our heritage as those who are in but “are not of the world?” (John 17:14). When will we find faith both to believe and to keep your word? (John 17:6).
O God, “your word is truth!” How long before you answer your Son our Savior to sanctify us in that truth? (John 17:17). How long until you compel us to be sent into the world in answer to his petition as consecrated, humble, holy, truth driven, witnesses to the gospel that this and this alone “is eternal life, that they know you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent?” (John 17:18, 3).
“In the longest prayer recorded in the Gospels” (Line 1525), Jesus does not plead to his Father for us to become “one” just for unity’s sake. A choice to walk hand-in-hand, “even as we differ and contend with one another” (Lines 1539-1540), is no answer to his prayer. Coming to the Lord’s table to symbolically “embrace the reconciliation that is ours in the death of Christ,” when we are in fact at enmity with one another is just play-acting at “our unity in Christ’s body” (Lines 127-128). It is a sham, by which we eat and drink judgment upon ourselves (1 Corinthians 11:29). Jesus’ prayer for us is both larger and more specific than TTF acknowledges.
Christ Jesus asks God to sanctify us in the truth that flows from abiding in and adhering to the very word of the Lord embodied in his own life and recorded in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Believing the proclamation of the Bible that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16), we endeavor to trust and obey the written word of God with one mind and one heart. We cannot agree to disagree on issues of Biblical morality and still claim to be living answers to his prayer. We cannot continue in contention and conflict and still hope to serve as the fulfillment of his plea.
The authoritative interpretation of G-6.0108 recommended by TTF sanctions, sustains, and strengthens the status quo. Under its aegis, presbyteries and local church sessions will continue to exercise the authority to ordain those individuals whose “departure” from denominational standards does not rise – in the well-considered judgment of the ordaining/installing judicatory – to the level of “a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity” (Lines 1197-1198, 1287, 1359). There is no doubt that, in some locales, this will include the ordination of sexually active gays and lesbians.
In reviewing the actions of local congregations and presbyteries, higher governing bodies are to consider only this: “Whether the ordaining/installing body has conducted its examination reasonably, responsibly, prayerfully, and deliberately in deciding to ordain a candidate …” (Lines 1201-1203). The determination of higher governing bodies is limited to “whether examinations were lawfully and fairly conducted and whether the matter of essentials was adequately grappled with” (Lines 1296-1297). It is not the essentials settled upon by the ordaining/installing judicatory that are under scrutiny, but only the procedure and exactitude by which the task of discerning and applying them was undertaken.
The recommended authoritative interpretation concludes: “All parties should endeavor to outdo one another in honoring one another’s decisions, according to the presumption of wisdom to ordaining/installing bodies in examining candidates and to the General Assembly, with presbyteries’ approval, in setting standards.” Or, in brief: when push comes to shove, local essentials trump national standards.
This is not local option per se because the local governing bodies are charged to give due deliberation to the standards set by the General Assembly; but the final decision as to whether a candidate’s departure from these standards violates “the essentials of faith and polity” – and therefore serves as a bar to ordination – is firmly in the grasp of particular congregations and presbyteries.
In the wake of adopting this proposed authoritative interpretation, we will remain both double-minded and double-practiced on the issue of ordaining sexually active lesbians and gays. This continuation of the status quo cannot contribute to the peace, unity and purity of the church. Uniting in the pledge to stay the course together through a never-ending “season of discernment” will not serve to answer the prayer of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Demonstrating to the world our split devotion regarding Biblical morality does not offer up a “compelling testimony to the truth and power of the gospel we” profess to “proclaim” (Lines 1550-1551).
Jim Henkel, NWI endorsing church pastor North Benton Presbyterian Church, North Benton, Ohio, Eastminster Presbytery
PUP’s report is nothing less than local option
Posted Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Imagine that. The PUP proposal causing controversy! The More Lights find the task force’s recommendation “deeply insulting” and those on the other side of issue see it similarly. Isn’t it interesting that opposing sides are, in one sense, of one accord; that is, in their strenuous objections?
What I’d like to know is how any PUP member could conceive, even remotely, that their work (or the lack thereof) would result in anything else? The idea behind their existence and work was to help our struggling denomination to some kind of resolution, not endless debate. That’s what we had before. How could they see their proposal as nothing less than local option? The implication is congregationalism. They surely must know local option is not an option.
Have several years and countless miles, hours, trees, ink and monies been wasted?
Rev. Steven L. Seng
PCUSA should not sacrifice purity on the altar of unity
Posted Wednesday, August 31, 2005
The Coalition is shouting the Word of the Lord to us. We should listen carefully. There is no way that we should sacrifice purity on the altar of unity. The New Testament scriptures clearly warn us about bonding ourselves with unbelievers and apostates. Way to go Coalition!
Rabun B. Harper, elder
Theory of evolution is not a science theory but a history theory
Posted Wednesday, August 31, 2005
The theory of evolution is not a science theory; it is a history theory. The theory of evolution doesn’t attempt to explain science, but history – supposedly what happened in history millions and billions of years ago. As such, it doesn’t belong in a science class at all.
Robert E Forman
I am not pro-abortion, but I am both Christian and pro-choice’
Posted Wednesday, August 31, 2005
I am both Christian and pro-choice. The two are not mutually exclusive. My generation was raised before Roe v. Wade. Women who were mothers, spouses, daughters and sisters died because of illegal, “back-alley” abortions. Their loss of life is as significant as that of a fetus.
I am not pro-abortion, but I am both Christian and pro-choice. I deplore the characterization that one cannot be both.
Sally W. Kaplan
Sin is sin no matter who it involves
Posted Wednesday, August 31, 2005
I have read many letters debating the ordination of homosexuals. I’m still waiting for a letter dealing with men and women living together without the benefit of marriage. Sin is sin whether it is a man and a woman, two men or two women.
Pete Simpson
Why our insistence upon unity remains an ugly hypocrisy
Posted Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Those driving a wedge between the PCUSA and the worldwide Body of Christ and those who break bread with them will soon enough be celebrated as champions of peace, unity and purity. GA 2006 will certainly see to that. But it will be a sham, an ugly hypocrisy of self-congratulations over having done little more than reiterate the Presbyterian status quo.
The quest for unity is not about holding the dissenting ideologies of the PCUSA into a single party; it is about keeping the PCUSA in sync with the rest of the Body of Christ. It speaks far more to our ecumenical agenda than our inner, political ones.
Unless you believe the PUCSA is the whole expression of Christ’s body, and nothing of the Church exists beyond it, the vow to uphold and protect the peace, unity and purity of the Church applies to the whole Body of Christ, not just the PCUSA.
There is a great difference between the task of forging theological consensus within our own house, under our own constitution, and seeking the oneness of the whole Body of Christ. Yes, we are right to seek theological consensus – the PUP task force represents one expression of that hope – but let’s call it what it is: just trying to get our own house in order. Until we do, it is difficult to talk about seeking consensus with Christians of other denominations.
The task force’s first recommendation is that we “stay together.” What they call the “unity of the body of Christ” remains a rather fierce loyalty to a worldly institution which is itself a departure from other Body of Christ institutions.
Presbyterians, like all Protestants, are schismatic in origin and character, but that should only be in terms of our institutional organization and government. We should all agree that the PCUSA is not the whole Body of Christ, nor should we claim that we are the only true expression of the Church. We once broke away from the Roman Catholic Church, and have historically distinguished ourselves up and against other denominations via our polity, our definition of mission, and our interpretation of Scripture. We remain “in schism” from Catholics, Orthodoxes, Baptists, Methodists and all the rest due to our defining standards: our Confessions and Book of Order.
When did we last reaffirm our shunning of Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, or even Mormons in print? We haven’t drafted or documented our distaste for their interpretations. We may groan with embarrassment at other pastors with enormous air time, but have we made a denominational position of telling the world that we think they are idiots? No, nor should we, for these are still our brothers and sisters in Christ with whom we share a narrow path and an eternal destiny. But even this hope of ultimate unity is not well-expressed in our confessions.
If the task force were serious about unity and oneness, they would have recommended that churches and individuals which persist – by action and expressed intention – to violate the word and spirit of Scripture and our constitution (esp. G6.0106b) be reprimanded for constantly threatening the unity of the Church. The progressives, more than any other factor, continue to force an unbiblical program into the GA and presbytery agenda at every opportunity.
Those who push for gay marriage and/or ordination remain the true threat to Unity, for it is they who are attempting to steer the PCUSA out of fellowship with the whole Body of Christ. Why in God’s name should we seek to be one with them? Why should we pat ourselves on the back for ignoring their truly divisive agenda?
Better to seek oneness with the whole world of Christianity – the overwhelming majority of which stands alongside us in receiving our sexuality as informed and guided by Scripture, and not one that is self-defined, self-authenticating, self-legitimizing, and ultimately, self-destructive.
Noel K. Anderson, executive pastor
PCUSA must talk about a peaceful, negotiated separation with honor
Posted Wednesday, August 31, 2005
We must stop talking about who is right and who is wrong. We must stop talking about anything that resembles compromise; and each side must stop talking about the other in pejorative terms and talk, instead, about a peaceful, negotiated separation with honor.
There need not be a splitting off or walking out by either faction. Rather, there can be the creation of two new denominations where there had been one, with expressions of respect and fellowship to one another.
Under such a separation or “re-organization,” each congregation would choose which new denomination it would join; ownership of church property would remain with each congregation; and provision would be made to protect and preserve the pension rights of the clergy. There would be neither winners nor losers. Mediators know this drill by heart, and it is not only workable but just and proper.
Someone must step forward and transform the present impasse from a contest over who is right and who is wrong into a loving and honorable discussion about how we brothers and sisters in Christ can work out a way to set up new, separate tents for our journeys into the Kingdom.
Reagan Burch
Come home to orthodoxy. We’re waiting to welcome you.’
Posted Monday, August 29, 2005
I was reading with interest the letter you posted from Mr. Ed DeJean [August 26, 2005] taking you to task for having the temerity to describe the Bible-denying, Christ-disgracing, heresy-spewing, sodomy-embracing, baby-killing, new-age-spouting, synchronistic liberal faction in the PCUSA as “apostate.” He seemed to be reveling in his self-identification as part of this category. How sad.
But I have cause for hope that Mr. DeJean may yet respond with repentance. The last sentence of Mr. DeJean’s letter tells us of the warning he believes the God of the Bible whispered into his ear. For indeed, when you are apostate, “you have a lot more to worry about than how The Layman describes you.”
May Mr. DeJean and all the heretics, apostates and unregenerate pagans who are part the PCUSA corner of the visible church turn to Christ and find not only salvation for their souls but renewal of their minds, that they may demonstrate what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God through the life-transforming power of the Holy Spirit.
Mr. DeJean, God has graciously given you a warning. Don’t waste the opportunity. Come home to orthodoxy. We’re waiting to welcome you.
Rev. Bill Pawson Westminster Community Church, Canton, Ohio
Peace, unity trump purity by allowing purity’s definition to be discerned locally
Posted Monday, August 29, 2005
One must be a little suspicious of a document that discerns 56 times and affirms 20 times. John Adams rightly points out the slippery slope. The report lets peace and unity trump purity by allowing what defines purity to be discerned locally. Empowered by this document, each session after having their desires affirmed by relationships can discern a course of action that makes them happy.
Affirmation in this context means the process of dancing around a proposition until it takes on a justification of its own and becomes believable. It is particularly useful in those cases where the Bible is too restrictive. Discernment is the process of creating an affirmation.
Using discernment, this report suggests that we ignore the clear prohibitions of Scripture for the purpose of discussion and then builds its case freed from that restriction. It never reckons with its false start because discernment is a creative process and requires no foundation. It allows one to temporarily set aside clear facts in order to promote discussion and then dispense with them altogether as the process takes on a life of its own.
Mohammed and Joseph Smith, when no longer willing to follow Biblical limitations, each wrote a book of their own. They will be judged for their efforts, but at least they showed some manner of intellectual integrity, a quality so lacking in this document.
John Cowan Cartersville, Ga.
A practicing gay person can’t be reconciled with what the Bible teaches us
Posted Monday, August 29, 2005
I have been receiving The Layman by mail for many years. I was signed up by a fellow elder without my knowing when I was on session. I don’t think I even knew your publication existed before that time. Sometimes your stances on issues are way too conservative for me. I have on a number of occasions considered asking you to take me off your mailing list. I have not done so because I am hopeful that Presbyterians can come together and find common ground. I seek to understand the concerns of all my fellow Presbyterians.
I wrote to you today as I do want to tell you one thing I strongly agree with. I agree that the ordination of gay people should not be allowed under any circumstance in the Presbyterian Church (USA). I am dead set against gay marriage and I am against ordaining elders and ministers that are practicing gays. I do not hate gay and lesbian people, I must state. I do not wish to see them persecuted or singled out as “super sinners,” but I do not think being a practicing gay person can be reconciled with what the Bible teaches us. I must add I am also disturbed by the number of divorces and extramarital affairs by church officers and pastors, and feel this is a serious departure from the Bible’s teachings as well.
My husband and I just celebrated our silver wedding anniversary this week. We hold marriage as a sacred covenant. Marriage is truly a sacred institution and I am deeply disturbed that any denomination might ordain an openly practicing gay person. I was most distressed when the Episcopal Church ordained a gay bishop. I feel that this issue is so pivotal that should we yield on this point, it will not only destroy the institution of marriage but also the whole church in the U.S.A. and Canada.
I applaud the recent vote by the Lutherans to reject the ordination of gay people. We must hold our ground or see the rapid decline and death of the church in the western world.
Beth Maxwell Boyle
Is baptism the next battle frontier?
Posted Monday, August 29, 2005
There is almost a full year for reactions to simmer over the PUP task force report. I have not yet read the full report, though I am looking forward to doing so. The hints are not promising. I cannot help but wonder if the areas of conflict that the task force was formed to address aren’t being slightly side-stepped and a new focal point for delay and debate being set up. If the question is not so much about ordination standards but what to do about baptized gay and lesbians living in faithful, committed relationships, then the question becomes, “What does it mean to be baptized?”
The form of the question makes it sound as though persons engaged in homosexual behavior, if baptized and not engaged in promiscuous homosexual behaviors, are somehow entitled to better treatment than they’ve been getting. As a church which practices infant baptism, it is only natural that gay and lesbian persons will have been baptized before any knowledge of sexual orientation or willingness to engage in homosexual behaviors will have ever been evidenced. The grace of God implicit in baptism reminds us that such persons are entrusted to God’s grace and as such should never be withheld from church membership because of their sexual orientation. A church should counsel such persons and, if their behaviors become so obvious and destructive of the church’s witness, a church can and should remove them from membership, though with an open-ended invitation to repent and return.
That describes what I feel to be the current situation of baptized gay and lesbian persons. The aspect of living in a committed, exclusive relationship might or might not make it easier not to dismiss them from membership due to their behavior. We are all baptized sinners. In baptism, we are trusting in Christ to be freed from sin. If we then choose to fall back into sin, we are not falling away from grace, but we are for certain falling away from the teachings of the church and the possibility of being an ordained leader in the church! In other words, it seems to me the church has already dealt with the question of what to do about baptized sinners who continue without repentance in their sins!
What difference should living in an exclusive same-sex relationship make? The sin of homosexuality is not in the rampant promiscuity. Lust compels both homosexuals and heterosexuals to be promiscuous. Homosexual behavior, however, is condemned outright in Scripture. There seems to be some slight of hand going on which redirects the question to promiscuity and not the sinful nature of homosexual behavior itself. This returns us to the questions of the authority of Scripture and legitimate and illegitimate methods of interpretation. I believe Dr. Robert Gagnon has made a compelling case for the nature of human sexuality and marriage, and has correctly interpreted God’s condemnation of homosexual behaviors as rebellion against God’s design.
Introducing baptism and exclusive relationships diverts the discussion. We can argue the nature of baptism and whether it imparts a grace which voids all other judgments, or we can argue that promiscuity is the real foe of the church in this culture besotted by sexual excesses. Those may be interesting arguments. They are not, however, relevant to the threat to the peace, unity and purity of the church posed by the question of ordination of homosexuals and progressive theology in general. Let there be a true knock-down, drag-out over specific essentials of Reformed doctrine and over Scriptural authority vs. science-sociology-cultural sources. No doubt there would be winners and losers, and schism becomes a more realistic possibility. But we won’t go limping along with two opinions!
Rev. Scott R. Mackey Highland Presbyterian Church, Tyler, Texas
Proposed A.I. is a ‘disingenuous loophole’ allowing ordination of homosexuals
Posted Monday, August 29, 2005
It is nonsense to suggest that the Purity Report does not create a local option to ordain practicing homosexuals.
In context, it is inescapably clear that the proposed “authoritative interpretation,” a disingenuous loophole, was created for the purpose of permitting individual presbyteries to ordain practicing homosexuals in defiance of G-6.0106b. It does not, of course, require such ordinations, but it takes extraordinary and unprecedented pains to make it difficult for the decisions of “ordaining/installing bodies” to be reversed on appeal (Section 5), thus insulating in advance ordinations that fly in the face of G-6.0106b.
Reagan Burch Memorial Drive Presbyterian, Houston
Writer applauds churches advocating for same-sex marriage approval
Posted Monday, August 29, 2005
Re: 6 churches back lesbian couple seeking same-sex marriage approval
Being a Canadian lesbian with the full rights of every other woman in this country, I applaud what you are doing for gays and lesbians in your area. Being able to legally commit to your partner is without a doubt dignifying and fulfilling to us as human beings. This right should be without question.
Please know that there are so many of us here in Canada in support of marriage rights for everyone in the United States. I hope that someday you have leaders in your country that show the same compassion, heart and forethought that our leaders have shown on this issue.
Jaclyn Bush Hamilton, Ontario