It’s time for the PCUSA to update the constitution
Posted Friday, August 28, 2009
I was happy to read in your article that the Rev. Jean Southard was found “not guilty” (in your terms) for performing a wedding for two women.
Your article did note that: “The Book of Order’s Directory for Worship clearly states that ‘marriage is a civil contract between a woman and a man.’”
Well, I expect that what the BoO states and what is fact will be the rub. The fact that the BoO includes the term “civil” and therefore bringing the secular state as having meaning as to the validity of marriage crosses the line between separation of church and state. This may be the only instance but who knows? And the question is if the PCUSA states something in its constitution regarding the United States of America, individual states, or local governing bodies which is not true, how is one to interpret what the PCUSA claims?
Well, the bottom line is it is a mistake to tie what the church notes as marriage or any other ceremony or anything of faith for that matter to the state.
Interestingly enough, I think this also ties into the struggles you have reported about churches wishing to leave the PCUSA with their property and getting the state involved.
I expect it’s time for the PCUSA to update the constitution and its actions to reflect true separation of church and state in all of these matters. Earl C. Apel, deacon Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church, Cincinnati, Ohio
Gag orders are typical of organizations that prefer to work in darkness
Posted Friday, August 28, 2009
I read the story regarding the latest machinations of a PJC to allow same sex ceremonies in spite of clear polity to the contrary. My only comment on the stupidity in Boston is that non-responsiveness and gag orders are typical of organizations that prefer to work in darkness where all wrong doing may be hidden.
However, within this article there is a clear mis-statement of fact which should be corrected. I quote: “In two later cases, involving ceremonies performed by the Revs. Jane Adams Spahr and Janet M. Edwards, the accused were cleared of wrongdoing through interpretations declaring that the ceremonies could not have been marriages since they involved same-sex couples. In both cases, neither defendant denied taking part in a “marriage,” even though doing so is against Presbyterian polity.” (Emphasis mine.)
Au contraire, in the Edwards case – at least – it was not a case not denying taking part. Ms. Edwards proudly and publicly proclaimed that she had performed a wedding for two lesbians. See the Pittsburgh Post Gazette of Oct. 2 and Oct. 3, 2008 for details.
In both the Spahr and Edwards cases, the rationale of the PJC interpretation was so specious, perhaps even ludicrous, as to render the disciplinary processes of the PCUSA meaningless.
What is next for the PCUSA? Merger with ELCA and the ECA? Wouldn’t surprise me.
Editor’s note: There was no mis-statement in The Layman article. Neither pastor ever denied that they took part in a gay “marriage.” Rev. Jim Yearsley Tampa, Fla.
Parsons has moved into the field of politics
Posted Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Just when you think he has reached the ultimate level of failure, Grayde Parsons has now moved into the field of politics and is offering the full support of PCUSA to Obama’s insane proposal for socialized medicine! He does not speak for me nor for thousands of other former PCUSA supporters who can no longer follow the “Non-Biblical” guidance being offered.
It seems to be too late to save the once God fearing denomination that has now been fractured by the lack of Bible following leadership, but perhaps PCUSA can try to revert to reading and obeying the guidance provided by the Bible and stay out of political matters! J. Robert McAllister
I resent our stated clerk taking any position on the health care plan
Posted Wednesday, August 26, 2009
I was appalled in reading in The Layman article by Edward Terry posted Aug. 14, 2009 that the Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons made a statement indicating that the PCUSA’s position on the health care legislation before Congress and being debated in town hall meetings seems to support what is now being discussed. I agree with Edward Terry in his last paragraph that the debate, which has divided the country basically along political party lines, also has focused on the speed at which the legislation is moving and Parsons’ statement indicated that the “PCUSA has joined in the full-court press for passage.”
As a member of and an elder in the PCUSA, I resent our stated clerk taking any position on the health care plan. I cannot understand how the church can take a position that a government run single payer system is the best solution to our nation’s health care. The statement made (as part of the resolution approved by the 218th General Assembly) that “our federal government already operates efficiently and with low overhead the health delivery programs of Medicare and Medicaid” is absurd. Our country has the best health care system in the world and polls show that the vast majority of citizens are happy with their current health care. The plan that is now before House of Representatives is a bad plan and contains many provisions not related to solving any problem with the current system. As for its health care provisions, in short, it expands the current Medicare/Medicaid to everyone. Unless the costs are greatly increased, coverage will have to be decreased, which will be at the expense of those who need the most care, the Senior citizens. I cannot understand how anyone who knows what is presently in the bill as it now stands could support it.
If we are going to change it, why not change the parts that need changing, rather than overhaul the whole thing? A few simple things would go a long way in curing any current problems and would reduce cost:
- Eliminate fraud and abuse in current Medicare/Medicaid.
- Be able to obtain insurance across state lines.
- Health insurance premiums be tax deductible.
- Tort reform.
William W. MacDonald Vero Beach, Fla.
Writer leans more to Marxist claptrap than to Christ
Posted Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Nice to see Rev. Kemper toe-ing the party line [letter to the editor, posted Aug. 24, 2009]. He has an interesting exegesis of the Gospel message. Too bad he owes more to the Marxist claptrap of James Cone and Gustavo Gutierrez than to our savior Christ. This dialectic is no more that the discredited kind of “liberation theology” that liberates no one – primarily because it is concerned only with pigeon-holing Jesus in a neatly controlled narrow little category that serves ideological and political causes.
Martin Luther is reputed to have deemed John 3:16 to be the “Gospel in a nutshell.” I must go back and re-read it – because I missed the part where it says only those who are poor, marginalized and at risk might be saved. Rev. Jim Yearsley Tampa, Fla.
Strongly against any government takeover of health care system
Posted Wednesday, August 26, 2009
I read with interest the article concerning PCUSA position on government-run health care.
I am a long time Presbyterian and currently a member of Grace Presbyterian Church in Plano, Texas.
While I feel, as a Christian, that everyone should be given help with health care if needed, I am strongly against any takeover of our health care system by the U.S. government or any state government. I am not sure where presbytery finds its support for such a position. Not all, but the majority of the Presbyterians I know are certainly against such a takeover.
I am not sure who made the quote but it goes like this: “If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it is free.” We need our Federal government to take care of the things it is charged with in the U.S. Constitution and let our free system work. John Priest
We must take stance that supports call to heal the sick
Posted Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Perhaps if we took individual stands as Christians and cared for those with no health care, we would not need to advocate for other types of intervention to provide care. But, until we do, we must take the stance that supports our call to heal the sick in any way that we are able. Bill Bess, teaching elder Havana, Fla.
When will we do something about the sin in our own camp?
Posted Wednesday, August 26, 2009
“The Rev. Katrina Foster, pastor at Fordham Evangelical Lutheran Church in The Bronx, N.Y., said Lutherans heard similar warnings about flouting Scripture when they made past changes that are now seen as successful – chiefly, the ordination of women.”
How many times has this connection been brought up by the unbelievers in power in our denominational structures? In article after article presented by this very news feed, they point out this fairly obvious link between the continuing decline of the visible Church in the West and its accommodation to feminism. When are we going to finally believe them, and do something about the sin in our own camp? Rev. Russ Westbrook
We must be ever vigilant when these processes are taking place
Posted Monday, August 24, 2009
Thank you for posting articles about the ARP. (“Erskine College goes under ARP microscope” and “Non-ARP students driving Erskine Seminary’s growth”)
This long standing denomination proves that even institutions of this earth are subject to mold, rust and decay. We must be ever vigilant to note when these processes are taking place and work to ensure plans for restoration. I ought to know, I drive a Dodge. Rev. Kent Moorlach
Appreciation for marriage statement
Posted Monday, August 24, 2009
Thanks, PFR! Renee Guth
Parsons responded to health care debate with clear understanding of Scripture
Posted Monday, August 24, 2009
Thank God for Gradye Parsons! Our stated clerk, as well as the 218th General Assembly is responding to the national health care discussion with a clear understanding of the Word of God. From Genesis to Revelation the teaching of the Scriptures is plain for all who will read it: Our God is concerned for the poor and the weak over against the rich, the powerful and the well-connected.
In the Books of the Law, the Writings, the Prophets (especially the Prophets), the Gospels, the teaching of Jesus, and the Epistles, God’s people are called to be advocates and activists for those pushed the bottom and the fringes of society. America is the wealthiest nation on earth, yet millions of our citizens go without medical insurance and basic health care. In many medical barometers we rank below even third world countries.
It is to the least of our Lord’s brothers and sisters that we are called, not the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, the health insurance companies and the large drug manufacturers. As a Presbyterian, I take satisfaction and even pride in the stands the stated clerk and General Assembly. The Rev. Deane A. Kemper Mt. Pleasant, S.C.
Who is converting who?
Posted Monday, August 24, 2009
And so now the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) with a reported 4.7 million membership, has approved of ordination for gays in “a committed relationship.” The vote wasn’t even close; more than two-thirds – 68 percent – gave their approval. This comes upon the heels of the Episcopal Church (ECUSA) doing the same thing. Do not suppose that this is the end of the matter.
Denominational and doctrinal distinctives are being lost among mainline Protestant churches; they are reciting a common party line. When will there a “United Church of America” as in Canada and Australia (two countries where few attend worship or even view Christianity favorably)? Isn’t it ironic that the more “inclusive” a denomination becomes, the smaller it gets?Just who is converting who here? Is the church converting society, or is society converting the church? Larry Brown African Bible College, Malawi
The government is not our god
Posted Monday, August 24, 2009
I can’t believe the Presbyterian Church (USA) is caving to this government intervention in our private lives to this degree. There are many more ideas that do not make the government our god. Our tithe will no longer be given to the Presbyterian Church until we know that it will not be used in this way. Elizabeth S. Brown
Stay out of politics
Posted Thursday, August 20, 2009
I am vehemently opposed to our denomination getting involved in the health care reform debate now going on in our country. I am opposed to more government control of our health care, and do not want any group supposedly representing my interest to support the proposed legislation. Please listen to your members and stay out of politics. Thank you. Sara L. Page First Presbyterian Church, Paducah, Ky.
Why are some church leaders speaking out on these issues?
Posted Thursday, August 20, 2009
Excuse me but I seem to be missing something.
Why am I reading comments about the health care issue here on The Layman? Sure this is an issue I feel strongly about but I believe if I intend to comment on it, I will direct my comments to my state and national government representatives, not The Layman.
Secondly, why are some our church leaders, supposedly representing each of us PCUSA members speaking out on these issues? Especially without full support from each of us.
Here is the problem we are experiencing with the civil union issue in our church. Our church leaders are wanting us to enjoin with our society’s ills and by the same token comment on the very secular health care issue. Our church leaders seem to be very confused with the church’s position of responsibility.
Just my opinion and by the way, I expressed my comments to PCUSA on civil unions and to my senator and representative on health care, not vice-versa. Richard Conway Morganton, N.C.