Minority erodes Church’s foundation by undermining Biblical authority
Posted Wednesday, October 30, 2002
According to John Adams’ report, Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick sees radically trimming the Book of Order as a way of promoting unity in the Presbyterian Church (USA). Kirkpatrick seeks thereby to de-emphasize these points of contention. After all, if the Book of Order says nothing about it, we Presbyterians can agree to disagree and can continue to share in the work of spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for “Presbyterians are united in their basic and primary commitment to God in Jesus Christ.”
Unfortunately, Kirkpatrick insists on looking at the Church through rose-colored glasses. In fact, his insistence on downplaying differences between Presbyterians makes one wonder if he’s living in the same world as the rest of us. The last quote of the first paragraph came from Kirkpatrick’s book, What Unites Presbyterians, as its most emphatic statement (p. 25). However, it is patently untrue. Although it is true of the majority of Presbyterians, there is a substantial and vocal minority within the Presbyterian Church (USA) that actively rebels against Jesus Christ as he is revealed through the pages of his inerrant Word, the Bible.
Jesus Christ alone is the Lord and Head of the Church, just as he alone is the Lord of the conscience. Even most of the vocal minority will say this. The problem is that they don’t believe it.
The vocal minority seeks to erode the Church’s foundation by undermining the Biblical authority and instead building the Church upon shifting sand, represented by the spirit of the age, which in the contemporary world is represented by the absolutizing of tolerance, inclusivity and the relative faith of the individual. It is this spirit of the age that the vocal minority holds as its word of its god. The vocal minority loudly proclaims that God alone is Lord of the conscience, but inasmuch as they refuse to put their trust in Jesus Christ as he is revealed in the Scriptures, they do not mean what they say. For to them, the spirit of the age is the lord of their consciences, and to repeat the familiar adage, “She who weds the spirit of the age will find herself a widow in the next.”
Consequently, Kirkpatrick’s recommendation of abridging the Book of Order will end only in exacerbating the current conflict. Rather than drawing the Presbyterian Church (USA) to a greater unity in the faith, if his ill-conceived idea takes root, it will but serve to hasten her demise.
Loren J. Golden Overland Park, Kan.
Constitution cannot be upheld both ways
Posted Wednesday, October 30, 2002
One hopes that Mr. Warritin is only missing the point about liberals “changing sides,” which was in reference to obedience to the constitution of the church. It is more likely, however, that he is following a typical liberal trend in claiming that a “principle” (i.e., inclusiveness) was the guiding motivation all along and never a rage for constitutional order.
Ahh, Mr. Warritin, that may sadly be so, but the truth is that when the constitution argued for a position liberals deemed “inclusive,” they fought and still fight like tigers protecting their young to enforce by every constitutional measure. Let the constitution include provisions liberals deem counter to “inclusiveness,” and the constitution is to be disobeyed and left null and void. The problem, sir, is that it cannot be upheld both ways. If it is principled to disobey the constitution for “inclusiveness” sake, then it is arguably principled to ignore it for the sake of not ordaining women based on a possible interpretation of Scripture or principled to leave the denomination with one’s property without penalty or paying some extortionary fee simply because the constitution is proved a toothless document to be set aside by individual or congregational devotion to a “principle.”
Of course, conservatives are tired of the old mantra about inclusiveness. Ordination is a calling for responsibility, not a right or sign of membership. The question has never been about including people within the membership of Christ’s church, but who may rightly be considered called (which in the Presbyterian and Reformed tradition is never merely an individual decision or even congregational decision) to leadership within the church. Leaders within the church should live lives which are much closer to the Scripturally prescribed life of holiness and faithfulness than perhaps the average church member simply because a leader’s life and teaching will potentially influence more of the average church members than other individual members.
Rev. Scott R. Mackey Ft. Worth, Texas
Bisexual friends are in a faithful relationship with spouse
Posted Wednesday, October 30, 2002
In a letter of October 24, 2002 to the Layman Online, “Reader confused by statement of Downtown Church,” Brian Ahier, Deacon of Gateway Presbyterian Church, The Dalles, Ore, said the following:
“Even if I were to concede that same-sex sexual relationships were not sinful acts, how in the world does bisexual sex become holy? By definition bisexual sex would entail multiple partners of both sexes.”
I used to have similar notions about bisexuality, until I actually became friends with Presbyterians who are bisexuals. They clarified for me that bisexuality means that a person has physical attraction for persons of both sexes. Whereas, heterosexuals have attractions for persons of the opposite sex.
A heterosexual male may be attracted to women, while expressing his sexuality physically with his spouse.
In a similar manner, a bisexual man may be attracted to both men and women, while expressing his sexuality physically with his spouse.
Being faithful in relationship with one’s spouse is something I observe to be true of my bisexual friends, especially those Christian friends who are Presbyterian. I encourage Mr. Ahier to meet and talk with the people about whom he speaks. Something that Jesus also encourages us all to do.
Ralph Carter Deacon, Third Presbyterian Church, Rochester N.Y.
So-called inclusive language does violence to Scripture
Posted Wednesday, October 30, 2002
I am distressed that the Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity has been unable to move beyond the “touchy-feely-Kum-Ba-Yah” stage to their real work after four meetings.
I am dismayed that the members do not seem willing to actually vote on anything and reportedly are still concerned about the presence of the press.
And I am distraught that any consideration is being given to doing violence to the Biblical revelation of the proper names for the persons of the Trinity for the sake of “inclusiveness.” I cannot imagine (but maybe I could Re-Imagine) a context wherein a reference to one of the persons of the Christian Trinity – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – could be conceived of as a non-Trinitarian practice and so to be acceptable and encouraged.
Frankly, if God had wanted to reveal himself in so-called inclusive terms he could have – indeed, he would have. But the fact is we have the revelation in languages that know nothing of this so-called inclusiveness, which really flows from the particular presuppositions of late-20th century liberal and feminist theology. I believe that so-called “inclusive language” is inherently exclusive. “Inclusive language” is inclusive only for those people whose point of view/philosophy/theological position/political agenda see it as such. But it is exclusive in that it does not include those who hold to a more traditional or orthodox position. And it becomes a justice issue when it is imposed upon or force-fed to people with a traditional or orthodox commitment.
There is no place in the Christian faith for addressing God the Father as “Mother/Father.” The revelation in the Bible does not permit it. That the task force has already begun to use this verbiage in its worship leaves me aghast. It is only more evidence to me of the liberal theological rot that is undermining the PCUSA. If we cannot get the revealed name and work of God the Father right is it any wonder that we are unable to agree on the person and work of God the Son? Unless our long-term goal is syncretism with paganism and heterodoxy, I doubt we will advance in Peace, Unity and Purity until we get our God-talk back to orthodoxy.
Rev. Bill Pawson Westminster Church, Canton, Ohio
Task force should consider third chapter of 2 Timothy
Posted Wednesday, October 30, 2002
Since we are no longer members of the PCUSA, I’m a little reluctant to suggest any course of action relative to the conflict that is tearing at the structure of the PCUSA. But, as an outsider, and also a member of a mainline denomination that is exploring the matter of human sexuality for the purpose of deciding whether to ordain practicing GLBT people, I think I have something to offer.
I appreciate the effort of the task force to consider using the Nicene Creed as a basis upon which to explore resolutions of the differences plaguing the PCUSA. As an option, why not consider using the third chapter of 2 Timothy? Clearly, the challenge from Paul to Timothy is to understand that the Christian church’s greater enemy is from within, from among those who have lost sight of Jesus as Lord in pursuit of Jesus as savior. And I use savior here to mean Jesus as affirming a particular point of view, whether it be Confessing Churches in pursuit of church reform or GLBT people in pursuit of church endorsement or denominational leaders who are letting their “body” bleed to death.
All of the great church statesmen – Paul, Peter, John, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Bonhoeffer, and others – have made it clear: We must make a choice to serve the Living Lord in accord with his voice that we read in his Word and understand through the accepted Reformed confessions, or we must go our own way, apart from his Word and these confessions, which will lead to our personal doom and the destruction of many who might follow.
John C. Ramsey Medina, Ohio
Clarification needed on bisexuality
Posted Wednesday, October 30, 2002
I would like to thank Earl C. Apel for explaining to me his definition of a bisexual relationship. It seems as if he speaks from experience, so I would not want to debate the issue with him. I would still like some clarification. So what exactly is a bisexual relationship if there are only two people involved, and what distinguishes a bisexual from a homosexual or heterosexual relationship?
And on the issue of sin: What is the Scriptural basis for allowing a person to have sex with whatever human they would choose as a partner, but disallow the choice of having an animal partner? Is the sin of bestiality considered still sin, but the sin of homosexuality is no longer sin?
Brian Ahier Deacon, Gateway Presbyterian Church, The Dalles, Ore.
Clerk’s idea: A thinly disguised attempt to change ordination standard
Posted Wednesday, October 30, 2002
Let’s be truthful. The current Book of Order is much too long. We really need a foundational document that requires a supermajority to amend. The problem with the one proposed by our clerk is that it leaves out the important statement on ordination. I see it as a thinly disguised attempt to get our ordination standards changed without confronting the issue head-on.
This will never pass. To have any chance of passing, a shortened Book of Order must include a strong statement on traditional sexual ethics and ordination. I believe that the more conservative part of our church would support such a document.
James Quillin
All inclusive’ means they will do as they please
Posted Wednesday, October 30, 2002
I read about “defying the Book of Church Order,” “not abiding by the constitution,” “not following church polity,” well the More Lights do not need a Book of Church Order or any other rules and regulations to follow. They are “all inclusive” which means they are going to do as they please. They don’t even need the Bible, because they surely are not living by it, and now they are trying to rewrite it. I think it is time to tell them to “get out.” And if the higher-ups, as well as any pastors, agree with them, they need to get out also.
Margaret Gibson
Liberals have not changed sides
Posted Monday, October 28, 2002
To the letter writer who suggests that liberals have changed sides – au contraire. The Northern Church has ordained women since 1954, with the first ordination of Margaret Towner. It was a belief that was founded on the fact that gender does not determine worthiness for ministry: and a need for inclusiveness. In the merger of the north and south in the 1980’s, the closed minded were given an option to leave if they didn’t accept inclusiveness. Many did. We don’t miss them. The move to include gays and lesbians is also based on inclusiveness not on constitutional requirements. Sexual orientation is not about ability to minister and to care and to preach the gospel. The liberals haven’t changed. We still believe in inclusiveness.
Ben Warritin
Renegades have trashed the Lord’s Supper
Posted Monday, October 28, 2002
Not satisfied with open defiance that threatens to shred the Constitution of the PCUSA into so much confetti, an outlaw band of renegades, who have the arrogance to still claim to be Presbyterian though they have essentially said they have no use for Presbyterian polity or discipline, have now trashed the Lord’s Supper!
We’ve now had communion served from a “table” covered with prayers affirming that which God has declared sin is now holy. Maybe next time, there will be a pro-partial birth abortion group that will want to use the table from an abortionist’s execution chamber.
May God forgive the evangelicals in this denomination if we do not take a stand now. And may God bless those faithful evangelicals who gathered in Louisville on the 28th to both take that stand, and call others to rouse themselves and demand the Bible be affirmed and the Constitution of the PCUSA upheld.
Jim Wilken, pastor Chillisquaque Presbyterian Church, Pottsgrove, Pa.
Achtemeier: Articulate, committed defender of unborn children
Posted Monday, October 28, 2002
I am sorry to learn of the death of Dr. Elizabeth Achtemeier, professor emerita at Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, Va. She was, of course, a distinguished Old Testament scholar. But, more importantly, in my opinion, she was an articulate and committed defender of unborn children, who perish in staggering numbers every year in this country. Dr. Achtemeier strongly resisted what is called “the culture of death,” even while our own Presbyterian Church (USA) has been co-opted by that particular culture on the abortion issue. Her prophetic voice will be sorely missed. I pray that we will learn from her commitment to the most vulnerable among us, the unborn children of America.
Rev. John Erthein Pastor, Elderton Presbyterian Church, Elderton, Pa.
PCUSA and Achtemeier miss the point
Posted Monday, October 28, 2002
Are the divisions facing the PCUSA really all that difficult to understand? Do they actually require a task force and time measured in years to identify and document? Does P. Mark Achtemeier really believe the secret to understanding these issues lie in the extraneous 4th-century writings of other men?
I suspect the problem is much closer to home and reflects a sweeping Biblical theme. Knowing what is right, do we have the courage and conviction to act on it? When contrasting the options to obey God or not obey God in Deuteronomy 30, God encouraged his people to obey, to choose life.
Will the PCUSA have the courage and conviction to choose life?
Steve Liguori Rochester, N.Y.
PCUSA does not have ‘clergy’
Posted Monday, October 28, 2002
In reading the notice of a document to be nailed to the doors of the PCUSA offices, I am disturbed by the use of the term “clergy” in the article. Our Presbyterian polity does not use the term “clergy.” We have members and officers, who are ministers of the Word and Sacraments, elders and deacons.
Please be more faithful to our tradition when describing activities of PCUSA members and officers.
Jay Wilkins Trinity Presbyterian Church, Berwyn, Pa.
Achtemeier correct: PCUSA should get back to its roots
Posted Monday, October 28, 2002
Mark Achtemeier is correct to encourage the PCUSA to get back to its roots on being a church of confessions and creeds and that is the beauty of the PCUSA, confessions and creeds.
Lou. S. Nowasielski Wilmington, Del.
The Nicene Creed is bedrock Christianity’
Posted Monday, October 28, 2002
Bravo, Mark! This is exactly the kind of thing on which the task force needs to be focusing. The Nicene Creed is bedrock Christianity. If you can’t affirm it, you aren’t Christian – period! The discomfort expressed by some members indicates how far away from traditional Christian thinking the Presbyterian Church (USA) has strayed.
Fred H. Anderson Honorably retired Presbyterian minister, Salem, S.D.