‘Mainline protestant’ churches silent on declaration
Posted Wednesday, November 25, 2009
I have watched the explosive response to the Manhattan Declaration since its release last week, with awe – and more than a little sorrow.
Awe because of the courage, conviction and plain Christian worldview of so many honest ecumenical leaders. Sorrow, because again the so-called “mainline protestant” church (PCUSA, Methodist, ECLA and EPC primarily) is suspiciously and characteristically silent. It really is no wonder that perhaps a better appellation is “sideline” rather than “mainline.” There is more than a passing resemblance to Barmen here.
It is long past time for the leadership of the PCUSA to “ … screw your courage to the sticking place.” As of today, more than 119,717 have signed on. [Number as of Nov. 25]. C’mon folks, grow a spine.
Rev. Jim Yearsley Tampa, Fla.
Declaration issues clear call for beliefs, practices grounded in faith
Posted Wednesday, November 25, 2009
As I read Aric Clark’s response [Posted Monday, Nov. 23, 2009] to the Manhattan Declaration, I must admit that I wondered if we had even read the same document. Clark seems to have missed the mark altogether in his critique of the declaration, for it is quite flawed.
Clark’s complaint about the declaration’s statement about Scripture, natural human reason and in the nature of the person doesn’t hold water. The declaration is not arguing that the three are equals, but that the three are contributors. It is reading more into the statement, and thus misreading it, to say otherwise. It is consistent with the Reformed tradition to hold that reason, anthropology and experience have a role in shaping our thought. I know of very few classic, confessional Presbyterians and other Reformed believers who do not hold that reason, anthropology and experience are important as well. But it is Scripture that has the primary role. Scripture is authoritative over reason, anthropology and experience in the Presbyterian and Reformed tradition. The problems come when you elevate any other contributor into Scripture’s place (as one can reasonably argue Achtemeier has done with experience in his recent statement). A Reformed Christian can sign this declaration, then, without doing violence to his/her understanding of Scripture’s uniqueness and authority.
In Clark’s criticism of the three sections of life, marriage and religious liberty, he objects that the declaration has “almost no theology” and “certainly no sound Biblical grounding.” If after reading the declaration, Clark can still make this kind of statement in good faith, then I must say I have no confidence in his ability to discern either theology or Biblical grounding when they appear.
In the declaration’s discussion of life, there is much said about a consistent pro-life ethic as shaped by our common dignity as creations of God in His image and by God’s desire that we may have full and abundant life, per the teaching of Jesus. Yes, abortion is the primary target, as the declaration is addressing a pastoral concern over our government’s policies and our societal and global slide into being a culture of death. But it is not the only concern addressed, not by a long shot. Read the last paragraph of the section and you’ll find a number of concerns listed. And all of them are related to the statement’s primary concern about life as a gift of God through both creation and redemption.
In the declaration’s discussion of marriage, Clark’s objections are particularly obtuse. The statement references both the Genesis “one flesh” (a statement Jesus endorses, by the way) and a Pauline teaching on how marriage represents in many ways the relationship between Christ and the Church. To say that it doesn’t “even so much as mention the volumes that Jesus and Paul had to say on the subject” is simply untrue. The statement summarizes in its opening paragraph in this section the central Christian teaching on marriage from Genesis, Jesus and Paul, and then uses this teaching to illustrate and to support the concerns for marriage in our day against the desires of those who want to open the door for marriage to include same-sex marriages and multiple partner relationships.
In the declaration’s discussion of religious liberty, it becomes apparent that Clark just doesn’t get it. Can he really ask “what on earth does ‘Freedom of Religion’ have to do with anything?” with a straight face? The reality is that increasing pressure will be placed upon those who disagree with expanded abortion on demand and revisioned marriage to comply, even if their consciences say otherwise. If that is not a religious liberty issue, then what is? By the mocking comment Clark makes about the reference to Caesar and God, he apparently doesn’t even realize that Jesus is the one who said it originally. So now Clark is correcting even Jesus’ theology? Talk about irony!
Could the statement have said more, given more illustrative information, and fleshed out details more fully? Of course. But it’s not a book! It is a short declaration. You could make the same criticism of the Theological Declaration of Barmen, for example.
My educated guess is that Clark’s objection to the Manhattan Declaration and its supporters is grounded in the recognition that the declaration issues a clear and concise call for beliefs and practices grounded in the Biblical and confessional consensus of the classic Christian faith, and Clark opposes this with all his heart. That’s his true problem with the declaration. His alleged dissatisfaction with its theology and Biblical grounding is but a smokescreen for deeper matters.
Clay Brown, pastor First Presbyterian Church of Mooresville, N.C.
‘How do we encourage a brother to rethink his decision?’
Posted Wednesday, November 25, 2009
OK folks. You disagree with Mark Achtemeier. So do I.
I disagree with his method, his use of Scripture and his conclusions. But he is not an apostate. He has not denied the core truth of the Gospel. He is a brother in Christ and therefore deserves respect and love. Mark has changed his mind on a moral issue and used what I think are questionable methods in doing so. If we each look carefully at our own use of the Bible I think many would find that we use emotion instead of the plain meaning of Scripture sometimes to make decisions. Or we use current cultural viewpoints as a perspective from which to read the Scripture. We all need correction. One of the tasks of the Church is to provide a space where Christian brothers and sisters can talk with each other and examine one’s own reading of the Scripture in comparison with that of the other.
Alas we evangelicals drive brothers and sisters out of the fold when they change their minds on important issues of the day. Has anyone gone to Mark individually and with humility and said “My brother I think you have stepped off the path?” How do we encourage a brother to rethink his decision? Publishing disagreements should be the last resort not the first.
I don’t know Mark very well at all. We have talked face to face maybe once or twice. I disagree with him. But he is my brother in Christ.
Let’s try to find a way among evangelicals to speak the truth with love rather than demonizing those who we think has made a bad decision. Isn’t that the way that Jesus and Paul taught us?
Robert Campbell, pastor Tully Memorial Presbyterian Church, Sharon Hill, Pa.
Tremba’s words will save many an unrepentant heart
Posted Monday, November 23, 2009
This was the very best explanation and the very clearest testimony about this issue that I have ever read. I cannot thank you enough for including it nor Kristin Tremba for writing it, as I believe that her words will save many an unrepentant heart and many a lost and hurting soul. I pray for the Lord to reward this beautiful woman for her faithfulness.
Chris Burgess
Sad to read of Christian bowing to political correctness
Posted Monday, November 23, 2009
Thanks for a thorough analysis of Professor Achtemeier’s conversion to apostasy. It was very effective. It is sad to read of an outstanding and faithful Christian leader bowing to the god of political correctness in an attempt to be more diverse and inclusive.
Thanks also to The Layman for standing firm for our faith in the real God.
Hang in there!
Bill Arthur Greenville, S.C.
Fine article on subject of homosexuality
Posted Monday, November 23, 2009
The article written by Kristen J. Trembra, Turning Hearts To God, is one of the finest on the subject I have ever read. I will pray daily for her and her work.
Douglas N. MacDonald
McNeill will need to be disciplined by Newark Presbytery
Posted Monday, November 23, 2009
On Nov. 19, Presbyweb printed The Presbyterian Outlook’s article about the pastor of the Central Presbyterian Church in Montclair marrying her same-sex partner in Massachusetts. I read this article by Leslie Scanlon with deep sadness.
Regrettably, Laurie McNeill will need to be disciplined by the Newark Presbytery for her marriage to Lisa Gollihue. Many in the PCUSA rejoice in this new union. I welled up with tears knowing that God’s intention for marriage is between a man and a woman. I affirm Laurie’s and Lisa’s love for one another. Deep and trothful relationships between people of the same sex are a wonderful thing. However, taking the step to be married is clearly outside the will of God.
I trust that Laurie will resign her position at Central Presbyterian and save the presbytery and denomination much anguish in having to discipline her. As a PCUSA pastor in Massachusetts on several occasions I have said “No” to gay and lesbian couples who ask me to marry them. I do so because the Book of Order states that marriage is between a man and woman.
In like manner Laurie should have never been “married” in this state because of the clear teaching of the Book of Order. I trust the Committee on Ministry of the Presbytery of Newark will uphold the Book of Order in dealing with Laurie’s marriage to her same-sex partner and not be intimidated by the rhetoric of those who espouse homosexual marriage.
Jeff Winter Martha’s Vineyard, Mass.
Manhattan Declaration has nothing from a theological perspective
Posted Monday, November 23, 2009
At least three Presbyterians were among the signers of the recent Manhattan Declaration: Carmen Fowler (editor of the Layman), Dr. John H. Huffman Jr. (of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church in California), and Rev. Tim Keller (of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York). I don’t know any of these individuals personally and so I will assume them to be people of impeccable character and virtue. This is not a comment about them as individuals.
I am curious, however, about how their theology interacts with their ideology. Most Presbyterians I have known who wade in conservative waters have been absolutely insistent about the primacy of a particular method of reading Scripture in making moral judgments or constructing sound theology. They would find statements like the following to be highly problematic:
“We set forth this declaration in light of the truth that is grounded in Holy Scripture, in natural human reason (which is itself, in our view, the gift of a beneficent God), and in the very nature of the human person.”
Setting Scripture alongside reason and nature as means of knowing the truth about God’s will seems to be a primary objection of Presbyterian conservatives I know to almost anything a progressive says or does. Read The Layman’s analysis of Achtemeier’s speech to see what I mean. Using feelings, experience, reason or observations from nature to arrive at the truth is inherently suspect from their perspective. So I wonder if the Presbyterians who signed the declaration, or those currently applauding it around my denomination, have considered the theology of this document closely.
I really do wonder, because the more I read it (I’ve been through the whole text five times now), the more convinced I am that there is almost no theology to be had here. There is certainly no sound Biblical grounding.
In their discussion of “Life” where is the Biblical notion that to be gained it must be given away? Where is their commentary on war, militarism, poverty, prisons or injustice? Can one even read the Bible in reference to “Life” and not touch on these matters?
In their discussion of “Marriage” why don’t they even so much as mention the volumes that Jesus and Paul had to say on the subject? They once again commit the mistake of making marriage the foundational institution and thus subverting the place of the church, which Jesus insists replaces familial relationships as the primary institution in God’s society.
And what on earth does “Freedom of Religion” have to do with anything? Do they have such a stunted ecclesiology mired in the bankrupt ideology of Christendom that they must receive their license to be religious from the state? Did they really say they will render unto Caesar what belongs to him, but refuse to render unto Caesar what belongs to God and then miss the irony in their own statement? Point me to that which doesn’t belong to God.
There isn’t anything to this declaration from a theological perspective at all. So what could be so attractive about it to conservatives in my denomination? I have a hunch that it isn’t the theology. It’s the ideology. I suspect they would agree with any document that was anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion regardless of the theology, exegesis or community behind it. Because at the end of the day their theological commitments aren’t as deep as they claim, but their ideological commitments are deeper than even they know.
Aric Clark Fort Morgan, Colo.
People come to Christ based on human feelings
Posted Monday, November 23, 2009
Carmen Fowler certainly will raise some eyebrows I expect in her analysis you published regarding Dr. Mark Achtemeier. She even coins a new theological term “Achtemeierianism.”
This reminded me of my college days where I had a roommate who was a PK (preacher’s kid). We often got into discussions about the Bible. One day he told me I practiced Arminianism being that I belonged to the Disciples of Christ whereas he practiced Calvinism. It was the first time I ever heard of the concept of a Christian not being simply a Christian, but having to be further defined. Well I guess I saw the light later and became a Calvinist since I later switched to the PCUSA although I’m sure there are those who will debate this.
Fowler notes “Through his ‘encounters with gay and lesbian believers,’ Achtemeier proffers a new definition of sin based on human feelings, not the Bible.” Her entire analysis is based on this premise and so that is where it falls flat.
The bottom line is that people come to Christ based on human feelings as a result of fellowship with other believers as well as reading the Bible. Christian faith is not something we are born with, but we learn it through others and it only becomes real through our feelings. We in fact have a relationship with Jesus Christ and God our creator where we experience love. It is not unlike any other relationship in life. You have feelings, which make it real. Otherwise the relationship is empty and dead.
I, like other gay and lesbian believers, also realize there is sin in the world and that we as well as any other Christian will commit sin of some sort until the day we die. Of course that does not mean because of our sinful nature we can say “What’s the use, let’s make the most of it.” It does require that we be in conscious contact with God and also turn to the Bible for guidance and inspiration, plus be responsible for our actions. In this process we use a combination of human feelings (experiencing the love and grace of God), human intellect (knowledge from the Bible, science, history), and faith (seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit through prayer to guide us in aspects of life that aren’t always black and white). And we thank Christ as our redeemer for making this good news a reality for us and as such have the good human feelings of joy and well being.
The bottom line is if we just rely on human feelings alone as Fowler claims we do, the answer is quite simple. We don’t even need to be associated with Christianity and wouldn’t that make life easier for us since the world supposedly says “Do your own thing?” But for some of us gay and lesbian folk we do find value in Christianity, not just simply living our lives exclusively on human feelings and having no regard for God or any religion for that matter.
I’m sure Fowler and others in this forum have had similar experiences but in different contexts. They have all come to a point where God is real to them and is a relationship that includes human feelings. This is a theological term we call “Christianity” of which we all belong and is all that is really relevant. This is something that should be celebrated by all, rather than using other terms to divide.
Earl C. Apel, member Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church, Cincinnati, Ohio
‘Churchianity’ is happening, but no solid Christianity
Posted Wednesday, November 18, 2009
An open letter to San Francisco Presbytery:
I was outraged to hear of the approval for ordination of Ms. Lisa Larges, a practicing homosexual, to the ministry of Word and sacrament.
Paul says to Timothy that in the last days, men will pay heed to seducing spirits, entertaining doctrines of demons. There will come a time when men will not put up with sound doctrine, but instead gather unto themselves teachers who will tickle their ears, introducing destructive heresies, even denying the master himself, having a form of godliness but denying its power. You have an outer empty shell, but no internal reality.
There is a lot of “churchianity” that is going on, but no solid Christianity. Is it any wonder that Satan himself goes around masquerading as an angel of light? Isaiah says woe unto those who call evil good and good evil.
The Jesus that Larges follows is the Jesus of amendment B that was introduced by the last General Assembly and defeated by the presbyteries. The Jesus of amendment B supersedes Scripture. This Jesus of amendment B is the Jesus of 2 Corinthians 11 where there is another Jesus and another gospel, and this is of another spirit, watch out!
You now have something of a cultic nature. I would like to point out what Scripture says about itself, the very Scripture that Larges intends to ignore. 2 Timothy 3:16 states:
“All scripture is inspired by God (literally God breathed), and is profitable for teaching, rebuking, reproof, and instructing in righteousness so the man of God may be equipped for every good work.”
We are not to correct it, but it is to correct us. The Bible calls this type of lifestyle an abomination to the eyes of God. If the church allows this type of behavior to enter into its mists, there will be destruction and devastation. Little by little things are beginning to deteriorate at the General Assembly level.
We cannot allow all the Larges, the Sphars, the Van Kuikens and More Lights to run around the landscape unabated. May I add that there was a lesbian minister who performed a same-sex wedding at the last General Assembly and nothing was done about it.
You might ask the question, well why name names? It is because the Bible does. Paul says that Alexander the coppersmith has done me much wrong. May the Lord reward him according to his works. Hymenaeus and Philetus have erred saying that the resurrection has passed, upsetting the faith of some.
1 Timothy 5:20 states, “Rebuke publicly all those who commit sins, so that the rest may be afraid.”
I do not doubt the sincerity of many in the presbytery or the people who are entrapped in this type of lifestyle, but they are sincerely wrong. Solomon once said that there is a way that seems right unto a man, but the end thereof is death. The danger in allowing people who will not follow Scriptural standards is that they will lead sheep astray. They will be leading people in the wrong direction by the things they teach and the behavior that they will condone. This is the tragic part. You can also expect judgment to fall upon the presbytery if you continue on this pathway. The institution of marriage and the church is coming under heavy attack.
I have said a mouthful, but I just have a strong feeling that all this will fall on deaf ears. In Corinthians, it states, “If our gospel is hid, it is hid to those who are perishing, because the god of this age has blinded the minds to the glorious gospel of truth.” The Bible also goes on to say, “For this reason, God will send a strong delusion, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.”
My prayer is that God’s spirit will open the eyes and ears of the soul to receive the glorious light of the gospel. He who has an ear let him hear what the spirit says. Tadashi Agari, elder commissioner to the 215th GA Presbytery of Stockton and currently seated on the Stockton Presbytery’s PJC
Tremba offers a clear and winsome rationale
Posted Wednesday, November 18, 2009
While the general drift of the PCUSA stampedes away from God along with the secular flow, Kristin Tremba offers a clear and winsome rationale which they are certain to ignore, if not ridicule. Her clear thinking and devotion to the Word is a breath of fresh air to all who feel smothered by the self-obsessed propaganda of the GLBT horde. For sure, here is one of the leaders we’ve been looking for. Noel Anderson, executive pastor First Presbyterian Church, Bakersfield, Calif.
Achtemeier admits experience has more authority than the clear Word of God
Posted Tuesday, November 17, 2009
It is hard for me to believe that anyone is/was surprised by Mark Achtemeier’s flip-flop on this issue. He has clearly been moving to the left ever since he worked his way onto the PCUSA’s Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church. More than anything else, my only honest reaction is sadness.
He is just the latest in a line of people who have made an idol of their own desire at the expense of Scriptural truth (can you say Rogers?). Read his address carefully and you find the admission that in his mind – now – experience has more authority than the clear Word of God.
His address to the covenant group was just a long overdue admission of what sure looks and sounds like apostasy.
The fallacy is to think that his credentials as an ordained minister and seminary professor somehow give him the authority to deny Biblical inerrancy and to disregard the sovereignty of God. In an authentically Reformed and faithful institution, Mark should be asked to resign – or be dismissed.
I assure you that 10 years ago, as a professor at Dubuque, any of his students who engaged in the kind of outrageous proof-texting that he exhibits would have probably failed his course.
As I said, my honest reaction is sadness. The slippery slope just got a bit steeper. Jim Yearsley Tampa, Fla.
How about some good news?
Posted Tuesday, November 17, 2009
I have enjoyed your publication for many years. But I have to honestly tell you that every time I have read your online edition sent to me, it’s just downright depressing! The PCUSA losing court fights for property they rightly own, ordination standards completely ignored by presbyteries, and on and on!
I am almost afraid to open the link anymore. It’s like, “What now?”
Could you give us some good news about what God is doing in our midst? Rev. Irvin Porter Church of the Indian Fellowship, Tacoma, Wash.
Marriages can face trials and tribulations with God’s help
Posted Tuesday, November 17, 2009
We believe that God created man and woman to be a married unit for the raising of a family and to nurture children. Our world has changed a lot because this has not been the way people have treated marriage in the past 30 years. Those of us who have been married for half a century know that there are trials and tribulations that every couple faces over the decades, but if they stand together they can face all of them with God’s help. Carl and Lucy Larson
G-6.0106b didn’t really resolve anything so LGBT stick around
Posted Tuesday, November 17, 2009
I appreciate very much the stand Lisa Larges has taken with her scruple. It is much more than simply addressing the issue of intimate relations between those of the same sex or the so-called fidelity and chastity provision.
I as a gay man did not have to declare a scruple to validate my being ordained and service as a deacon. Likewise many other deacons and elders in the PCUSA who are LBGT do not have to do this and this is also the case with a handful of ministers who are LGBT. Yet I must say I am inspired nevertheless by the statement Larges made. Her scruple not only addresses same-sex relations, but also the relationship of Scripture and the confessions to our faith as Presbyterians.
I remember when first studying the Book Of Order (BoO) I found the flow to be quite sensible when first stating Christ is the Head of the Church and then explaining how the Bible and the confessions fit in. But then when G-6.0106b appears it seems as though a disconnect happens. It is as though it has been inserted without regard to how it relates to what has preceded in the BoO. And there is really no sufficient wording afterward to explain the disconnect. While many know of the background, the fact is that G-6.0106b is poorly written in relation to the rest of the BoO. And those in favor of G-6.0106b could have resolved the debate quite easily by making the BoO quite explicit in saying LGBT folks engaging in sexual relations cannot be ordained. But the BoO doesn’t even use the term LGBT or even homosexual.
I continue to wonder if those who support G-6.0106b honestly feel it accomplished what was needed or even makes sense in context with the rest of the BoO? The fuss continues and to be quite frank I and others aren’t just debating this for the heck of it or to cause a lot of needless trouble. The fact is that G-6.0106b for us didn’t really resolve anything so we stick around. Of course others have left and maybe they have more sense than we do. But then does having faith mean you have to have sense? Jesus didn’t seem to have any sense to those of the world, so I guess that is a good mode to follow even though it makes life a little more annoying.
Back to the scruple I must admit at first I find the idea a bit bothersome. But then I think it is probably a better route to take these days. In fact I kind of wish I could do it. But I’ve been ordained a deacon and my understanding is once you are ordained in the PCUSA, it sticks unless you are a minister and get defrocked.
Perhaps others waiting to be ordained (LBGT, straight or whatever) should consider doing the scruple as Lisa did. Then the PCUSA will be forced to make it clear once and for all how our faith is to be in relation to Jesus, God, the Bible and the confessions, and heaven knows what else. Earl C. Apel, member Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church, Cincinnati, Ohio