Nostalgic about the PCUS? Come over to the PCA
Posted Tuesday, February 27, 2007
If Mr. Freeman [letter to the editor, posted Feb. 23, 2007] is feeling nostalgic about the PCUS, all he has to do is to come over to the PCA. We came out of the PCUS and yes, we still have the solas, the TULIP and respectful belief in the sovereignty of God.
Robert Demarest Cuminale Charlotte, N.C.
Political positions taken by the national Presbyterian church
Posted Tuesday, February 27, 2007
My elderly father is concerned about the political positions taken by the national Presbyterian church organization. I am aware of the boycott Israel campaign over the fence, the refusal to enforce the ban against homosexual ministers, the boycott Taco Bell drive. Didn’t the church also come out against the Iraq war and the Bush tax cuts? Is there a place where I can go to find a history of the political positions taken by the national Presbyterian church?
Editor’s note: The PCUSA’s Washington Office is the public policy information and advocacy office of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Its task is to advocate the social witness perspectives and policies of the General Assembly. In a series of statements, it has come out against the Iraq war and the federal budget. Keith Orr
A denomination held together by a trust is doomed to dissension and decay
Posted Tuesday, February 27, 2007
When the Presbytery of St. Andrews removed the case to federal court, the long-dead lawyer in me remembered that the adjudication of property issues is a matter of state law, and so it was likely that the case would be remanded, as it has now been. The action of removal, as the judge seemed to sense, was so contrary to what most first-year law students would have answered to a question in federal procedure that the only reasonable conclusion is that it was a litigation tactic. (Of course, we cannot today know what the next step the parties will take or the ultimate result in secular courts.)
I think this, and other litigation tactics being used in secular and church courts, points out the dramatic difficulties that we face as a denomination. Whatever a state court might hold, a denomination held together by a trust clause rather than by common faith and doctrine is doomed to dissension and decay. Whatever else the situation may involve, we should be able to see that we are not in a good place. Whatever secular courts may rule, we should not hold congregations within the denomination because of a property trust clause.
Here is where a return to Calvin might help us all find a peaceful way out of our dilemma.
For Calvin, it is fundamental that a church is a body that “agrees on the one truth of divine doctrine, and is bound by the bond of the same religion” (Institutes, 4.1.9). The true church is bound together by sound doctrine and brotherly love (4.2.5). Brotherly love, however, depends upon the existence of the first element – sound doctrine:
- But it must be noted that this conjunction of love so depends upon unity of faith that it ought to be its beginning, end, and, in fine, its sole rule. Let us therefore remember that whenever church unity is commended to us, this is required: that while our minds agree in Christ, our wills should also be joined with mutual benevolence in Christ (4.2.5).
The love that binds the church together is a kind of “truth/love” that combines a right apostolic understanding and right personal relationships built upon the foundation of right understanding. There can be no “right relationship” apart from “right understanding.” Thus, apart from the Word of God, there is no church, just a faction of persons (4.2.5).
An inevitable result of a lack of doctrinal agreement is, for Calvin, the dissolution of the church. This aspect of Calvin’s thought is jarring in an age committed to theological pluralism. Yet, Calvin’s observation explains the factionalism that is the Presbyterian Church (USA): Without a doctrinal center resulting in a common way of life, factions are inevitable and unity of spirit and love are impossible. A church without a doctrinal center simply dissolves from the inside out. The constant calls by those in control of our denomination that we need to be an “inclusive body” is, unfortunately, not only false as a matter of doctrine, but unworkable as a matter of polity.
Consistent with the importance of the pure preaching of the Word, the church has two primary doctrinal responsibilities: To set out the doctrines of the faith and to accurately teach them (4.8.1). The dignity of the church and respect for its leadership is dependent upon maintaining the ministry of the Word entrusted to the apostles and their successors (4.8.2). When pastors faithfully proclaim what the Scriptures teach, they follow in the footsteps of the prophets and the apostles (4.8.3-4).It is the apostolic faith that much be proclaimed and taught, though leaders are free to adjust their teaching to the “diversity of the times” (4.8.5).
This freedom to adapt preaching and teaching to the needs of the times does not, however, extend to “innovation.” Teachers should teach nothing that is not included in the sacred writings nor depart from sound doctrine (4.8.6). Thus, Calvin writes:
- Let this be a firm principle: no other word is to be held as the Word of God, and given place as such in the church, than what is contained in the Law and the Prophets, then in the writing of the Apostles; and the only authorized way of teaching in the church is by the prescription and standard of his Word (4.8.8).
In expounding the pure Word of God, pastors are not to twist Scripture nor are private inspirations of the Spirit to be taught (4.8.10). The unity of Word and Spirit is such that they can never contradict one another or be separated (4.8.13).
The decay of doctrine and of the teaching office of the church is one of the clearest indicators that some kind of confessional and structural distance may be appropriate. Speaking of the Roman church, Calvin criticizes the formulation of new doctrines and the evil of turning people away from the pure Word of God:
- Indeed under the term “spiritual power” I include boldness in formulating new doctrines by which they have turned people away from the original purity of God’s Word, the wicked traditions with which they have ensnared them, and the pretended ecclesiastical jurisdiction which they exercise. .” (4.11.8).
Decay in the teaching office of the church, characterized by “new doctrines” and turning away from pure doctrine, is characteristic of a decaying church. Such a church, administered by a corrupt bureaucracy, must fall whenever the kingdom of Christ comes among the people (4.11.1.8). This was the reason for the Reformation.
To a large degree, the interminable debates in the PCUSA over doctrine and morals are a consequence of the erosion of a common doctrinal center that permits debate to reach a reasonable conclusion within the framework of a common doctrinal consensus. It is difficult for agreement to be reached among persons who disagree on such fundamental aspects of Christian faith as (i) whether God is a transcendent being or a concept describing human capacity for self-transcendence; (ii)whether Christ was the Son of God or a human in whom God was uniquely present; (iii)whether the Cross is central to salvation; whether the resurrection is historical or symbolic; (iv)whether the Old and the New Testaments are divinely inspired documents or records of human contact with the divine, and the like. For Calvin, a lack of doctrinal unity of this magnitude is bound to result in endless debate, fractious quarrels, and lack of unity – exactly what mainline churches have experienced.
We can, if we want to spend the next 20 or 200 years in conflict. The leadership of our denomination can, if it wants, use the trust clause and civil courts to attempt to maintain their control over local congregations. In many cases, they will be successful. But, a denomination sustained by force of law rather than the power of the spirit in the unity of the apostolic faith will not be a church – just a fractious debating society.
I am writing this article in response to the news and John Almquist’s letter. John has frequently urged on the denomination some kind of “two-synod” model. My own view is that we need a “two-fellowship” proposal. We hold this in common: The parties need to confess that we have come to a point of fundamental disagreement and structure our common life accordingly.
Quarreling over doctrine, morals, and ordination standards has gone on long enough, and long enough that we all know we will never agree. How long before we can find a better and peaceful way out?
So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers. Is not the whole land before you? Let us part company. If you go to the left, I’ll go to the right; if you go to the right, I’ll go to the left.”
May God be with us and give his wisdom in his dark hour.
Chris Scruggs Advent Presbyterian Church
Submission to authority is a challenge we all face
Posted Tuesday, February 27, 2007
I’m curious about the complaints that some PCUSA women religious are making about the EPC. In my own experience, I am aware that taller men have more opportunities presented to them than men of my average 6-foot 1 1/2″ height – better looking guys even more. I wanted to be a scientist, but I just wasn’t able to cope with the math. I’m just not made that way. But I have all my limbs, all the requisite faculties and I try to keep a good attitude, even when those in authority over me tell me “I can’t …”
Submission to authority is a challenge we all face and an important part of our personal walk.
So, you could say, I suppose, as Groucho said, “I wouldn’t join a club that would have me as a member.” Or, you could say, “I wouldn’t join a club where I couldn’t be a leader.” Or, you could figure out how to be a leader anyway. I hear there’s an opening on the streets of Calcutta.
Jack O’Brien, elder Pittsburgh, Pa.
Committee’s unreasonable criticism of presbytery has no basis in law or fact
Posted Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Re: Baton Rouge judgment conflicts with Book of Order, panel finds
The position taken by the Administrative Review Committee (ARC) of the Synod of the Sun regarding the actions of the Presbytery of South Louisiana (PSL) shows a reckless disregard for the facts of the case or the law of Louisiana. A brief review of the facts will show that the presbytery acted properly.
The First Presbyterian Church of Baton Rouge (FPCBR) was organized in 1828. The present sanctuary was built in 1928. The session is interested in making certain capital improvements to the existing structure. It was aware, however, that given the general malaise of the Presbyterian Church (USA), no capital campaign could be successful while the ownership of the property was unclear, with the PCUSA alleging the existence of a trust by G-8.0201.
The church corporation brought a suit to settle the ownership of the property so that the capital campaign could proceed. The FPCBR was a former PCUS church prior to the merger of denominations in 1983. These PCUS churches were given the option to elect out of the trust provision of G-8.0201 by G-8.0700 The session of the FPCBR did that on October 18, 1987. Therefore, the implied trust of G-8.0201 did not apply to the FPCBR.
Furthermore, no entity or person affiliated with the FPCBR ever acted to create any sort of trust with the PCUSA as a beneficiary.
In short, there was no basis in law or fact on which the presbytery could prevail. The presbytery wisely and amicably elected to settle the matter with a stipulated judgment. This avoided further legal expense in a case in which the chance of success was nil.
Now that the ownership of the FPCBR’s downtown property is settled, the way is clear to mount a drive to raise funds for capital improvements to an aging physical plant.
The unreasonable criticism leveled by the ARC against the presbytery has no basis in law or fact and can only serve to create further ill will within the denomination. One statement is particularly disturbing:
- “In addition, the Stipulated Judgment contains a provision pertaining to prior written notice before any action is taken to discipline a minister, which is contrary to the provisions of the Rules of Discipline of the Book of Order (D-6.0302, D-10.0103).”
This suggests that the ARC would like to take some sort of punitive (or possibly vindictive) action against the ministers of the FPCBR (although they have done no wrong) but are constrained from doing so by the stipulated judgment. (The Stipulated Judgment requires that the presbytery give 30 days notice to counsel for the FPCBR prior to taking any disciplinary action.)
Although the ARC claims that they want to “promote harmony” and “build up the body of Christ,” such improper criticism from the ARC seems likely to generate further alienation of congregations and presbyteries from the Synod of the Sun and the General Assembly Council. The Synod of the Sun should act promptly to repudiate the position taken by its ARC.
George Hill, member First Presbyterian Church of Baton Rouge
Dirt and stuff: That’s what makes us Presbyterians
Posted Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Over the past few years, and especially in the past six months, I have considered just what it is that makes the PCUSA tick. I have been puzzled by its stubborn refusal to clear up a number of ambiguities in its polity.
For instance, the PCUSA expects deacons, elders and ministers of the Word and sacrament to “receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith,” but for 80 years, it and its predecessors have refused to declare just what it is that is “essential.” We surely don’t want to offend any non-believers by declaring that Jesus is exactly who he says he is in John 14. (And we couldn’t do that anyway, because we also refuse to declare that John 14, or any other Scripture, is necessarily authoritative. Or even true!)
The next ambiguity is the concept du jour of Presbyterian connectionalism. “Oh, we have to stay unequally yoked to preserve our historic Presbyterian connectionalism.” And yet, I cannot find a decent description of what those people in Louisville think our “connection” is.
Thus, we owe a real debt of gratitude to the Synod of the Sun and its Administrative Review Committee. With the wise counsel of the Rev. Mark Tammen, director of constitutional services of the General Assembly PCUSA, this committee tells us that when the Presbytery of South Louisiana entered into a constitutionally-appropriate judgment regarding First Baton Rouge’s property, it “negate[d] the connectional covenant of our Presbyterian polity.”
Thank you, Synod of the Sun. You have finally defined for us just what the bureaucracy of the 21st Century PCUSA considers to be the source and basis of our connection. Thank you.
“But, wait a minute,” you say. “What is that connection? Is it a common belief in the inerrancy of Scripture? How about a well-defined and undeniable belief in the virgin birth and deity of Jesus Christ? Could it be a connectional belief in his substitutionary atonement on the cross and his bodily resurrection? A public affirmation that Jesus Christ is coming again? Or maybe, just maybe, it is all of the above?”
Alas, no. Nope! No way. Unh-uh! The thing that connects us is … dirt. In this case, the good rich earth of Louisiana. But Pennsylvania clay, West Texas sand or the red earth of Georgia will do as well. Bricks and mortar. My brother, Jim Henkel’s fellowship hall painted rose or lifeless off-white. Those little plastic communion cups and the broken crayons in the toddler classroom. Stuff.
The denial of the teachings of Scripture? That doesn’t divide us. The refusal to shout from the mountain tops, without qualification, that no one comes to the Father except through Jesus Christ? That’s just a minor disagreement over semantics and phrasing. The “Classic Comics” version of the Trinity? Hey, it’s the 21st Century in America, man!
No, what “negates the connectional covenant of our Presbyterian polity” is the temerity of a church or a presbytery to look at certain legal documents and to take them for what they are. The refusal of a presbytery to engage in costly and unnecessary litigation, that is what negates our connection.
So, the next time anyone asks me, “What is that you Presbyterians believe in?” I now have an answer. We believe in dirt and stuff. That’s what makes us Presbyterians. Hey, Pastor Jim. Have you got a spare gallon of rose-colored paint? We need to repair our connection.
Michael R. “Mac” McCarty, elder Forks of the Brandywine Presbyterian Church , Glenmoore, Pa.
Is St. Andrew Presbytery hamstringing itself in civil court arguments?
Posted Friday, February 23, 2007
In arguing that the controversial and ambiguous property trust clause in the Book of Order is not a civil matter but a matter of church polity, isn’t St. Andrew Presbytery hamstringing itself? It seems to me that if St. Andrew successfully argues that the civil courts must stay out of the matter, it leaves itself no way to execute on its victory. This is because, unlike civil law, PCUSA law has no system for commanding those who renounce it to come to heel.
St. Andrew Presbytery would have to come back to civil court to force execution on their decision regarding title. But that case has been argued and decided. It’s clear that when it comes to matters of property, conduct and other interactions with the secular community, civil law must supercede.
Jack O’Brien, elder Pittsburgh, Pa.
The discipleship of NWAC local churches is about to be tested
Posted Friday, February 23, 2007
Rev. Dr. Larry Brown raises excellent points in his Layman Online posting of Feb. 20. I agree that many rank-and-file local church members are oblivious to denominational issues. It does not “bother” the average Joe or Jane in the pew that our General Assembly stated clerk “is a liberal,” that “the door is open for the ordination of” those engaged in sexually immoral lifestyles, that the doctrine of the “‘Trinity’ is being tampered with,” that “the Bible has been largely discarded” in our rush to embrace unity in diversity, and “that there are advocacy groups in the PCUSA championing leftist causes.”
These realities simply do not impinge on the choice of paint color for the fellowship hall; or whether the pastor has called on Uncle Mel on the anniversary of Aunt Alice’s death; or whether the deacons should provide the congregation with a range of memorial flower choices to grace the Easter chancel, thereby breaking a 45-year tradition of white lilies only; or whether In the Garden gets more Sunday morning play-time than O Sacred Head Now Wounded or Celebrate, Jesus! Celebrate!
“If they do,” Dr. Brown rightly observes, “it is easier” for the average member “to move his” or her “family to another church than it is to change the denominational affiliation of the” congregation. Even here, it has been my experience – in more than 30 years of pastoral ministry – that very few folks will abandon their local church over denominational issues. Memberships are pulled because the call on Uncle Mel did not get made, or the fellowship hall should have been painted rose instead of that lifeless off-white, or because someone hurt somebody’s feelings, or the pastor dared to make the King James Version translation of Hebrews 12:8 a sub-point in last Sunday’s sermon (has s/he never read James 3:1-12?). The old saw rings true: the devil is in the-details; the big, denominational issues don’t hit home with anything near the same frequency or force as the little, parochial things.
The plain truth of Dr. Brown’s observations renders what occurred in Orlando on Feb. 9 an event of amazing significance. The rank and file members of 130 PCUSA sessions are so concerned about current affairs in our denomination that they took the trouble to send delegates to the New Wineskins Association of Churches (NWAC) Convocation. Then, each and every delegate so sent stood, quite literally, stood, in agreement with the recommendations of the NWAC Strategy Team.
This unanimous vote declared that individuals and congregations who are part of the Presbyterian Church (USA) and who desire to remain faithful to Jesus Christ, as he is revealed in Holy Scripture, have only two possible choices.
First, they can choose to remain members of the PCUSA. A local church or individual member can choose commitment to speaking with a prophetic voice to our denomination, while striving to serve as a model of continuing, righteous obedience to Christ Jesus within a national organization that celebrates the full inclusion of broadly diverse lifestyles and ideologies.
Exercising this first choice is a decision to make the religious establishment of our own denomination the primary focus for mission and ministry. It is an outreach to “Jerusalem.” It zeros in on the charge: “And you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem,” trusting that others in the larger body of Christ will pick up what remains of Jesus’ call, “and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8b-c).
The second possible choice is to realign “with a Reformed body that is more faithful to Christ, more obedient to Scripture and seeks a missionally-focused partnership with us than is the PCUSA” (NWAC Strategy Team Report, p.16). The Reformed body recommended by the NWAC is the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC), which stands solidly in the mainstream of Presbyterianism in the United States and is a member of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches.
Making this second choice allows the energy that would be invested in efforts at denominational reform and renewal to flow toward honoring the fullness of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20). The NWAC and the EPC are jointly dedicated to fostering “a missional church that:
- “Worships and glorifies God and lifts up his Son Jesus Christ, so that others may be drawn to him.
- “Intentionally reproduces authentic disciples of Jesus Christ.
- “Equips members as missionaries sent by God to live and proclaim the kingdom of the Lord Jesus in their own world. …
- “Believes the location of ministry is the local church” (NWAC Strategy Team Report, page 17).
There is risk attached to this second choice. It is impossible to determine how a particular presbytery will respond to a request for dismissal to another Reformed body.
The PCUSA includes a provision in our Book of Order that declares property to be held in trust by each local church for the benefit and use of the denomination (G-8.0201). Contrary to Dr. Brown’s opinion, “a rank-and-file Presbyterian” cannot rest assured that his or her local “church will have the same building at the same location.”
A congregation seeking dismissal from the PCUSA may find that the presbytery of jurisdiction – following the counsel of “http://layman.wpengine.com/discern/faqs-and-urgent-issues/” – is unwilling to release claim on their assets, grounds and buildings. This can result in extended litigation without a guaranteed outcome. The courts may find in favor of the presbytery, even though the “neutral principles of law” that most often apply to such cases seem to favor the local church. As an alternative to court action, a presbytery may push for a negotiated settlement (with or without accompanying legal filings). History shows that such settlements fall in a broad range from tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
In my own Eastminster Presbytery, the Stow and Hudson churches voted to disaffiliate from the PCUSA last fall. Though they are each New Wineskins congregations, both decided to make an early exit from our present denomination. Eastminster Presbytery has responded differently to the two churches. There appears to be pressure toward a negotiated settlement with Stow, while an administrative commission has been set in place to deal with Hudson and that case is in litigation. Neither Stow nor Hudson requested dismissal to another Reformed body. Whether such a request would receive a more friendly response from Eastminster Presbytery is unknown.
Along with 150 other NWAC local churches, my session and congregation face a momentous decision that potentially carries a very high cost. I have no doubt that many average Presbyterians, if caught in the same circumstance, would balk at requesting dismissal from the PCUSA.
This Sunday morning my choice to preach through the Gospel of Luke, at my congregation’s 10:30 worship hour, brings up Jesus’ comment on the cost of discipleship. He concludes by admonishing: “So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:33).
Dr. Brown estimates that only 10-15 percent of NWAC congregations “will actually join” the non-geographic, transitional presbytery to be authorized by the EPC. He may be proved right but, if he is, it will not be because of the “inertia” factor that plaques the muddled-middle of our denomination. It will be bricks and mortar, clapboard siding and stained glass windows that hold congregations back from requesting dismissal to another Reformed body. It will be an unwillingness to corporately renounce all that they have.
The discipleship of my own NWAC local church and that of 150 others is about to be tested. Pray for us, brothers and sisters. Pray!
Jim Henkel, NWAC endorsing church pastor North Benton Presbyterian Church, North Benton, Ohio, Eastminster Presbytery
What is CCM doing within the PCUSA to discipline its leadership?
Posted Friday, February 23, 2007
As an active elder in our church, I struggle along with others over the trends of the PCUSA and its leaders. With the current movement of a group of 151 churches (the New Wineskins Association of Churches) that are planning to leave the PCUSA for the EPC (Evangelical Presbyterian Church) on Oct. 29-30, I wonder what is our Confessing Church currently doing within our denomination to discipline its leadership? Is it possible, or not in your opinion?
We are confessing the truth. Our denomination is corrupted. Can we do something to save it? Our session is looking and praying for guidance of any and all sorts. We will be meeting with a local group of elders from surrounding churches in the near future to discuss this further. Thanks for any insight you can offer.
Pete Vandewater, elder/treasurer Curwensville Presbyterian Church
A common tactic by big organizations to bully small plaintiffs
Posted Friday, February 23, 2007
I don’t claim any expertise with federal practice, but the presbytery’s jurisdictional argument looks very weak. The core issue here is interpretation of state law. That is, whether ownership of church real estate is determined simply by the title or can the presbytery support their argument of an implied trust. The federal courts traditionally shy away from such matters.
The likely result is the wheels will grind for a while, then the District Court will send the matter back to state court.
It’s a common tactic by big organizations to bully small plaintiffs.
Often, the attorney for the local organization is not admitted to federal practice. So another attorney has to be hired, adding to litigation expenses. Then there is the added psychological pressure by moving the case from the local court (where the judge is probably well known to the community members) to the distant and mysterious federal court.
Tom Taggart
Corinth case: Misuse of the federal civil court system to harass
Posted Friday, February 23, 2007
What about the 10th amendment of the U.S. Constitution?
In the Corinth Mississippi case, we have a state court case dealing with issues of the validity of a trust provision and property issues, clearly issues relegated to the states under the 10th amendment. The church property and presbytery are located in the same state. These are not theological questions and they do not involve property in more than one state. Clearly, under the 10th amendment, these are legal questions to be resolved by state courts.
So, where is the federal standing? This is a trust and property case, all the parties and property are in the same state, and it appears that the PCUSA is not an arm of the federal government. There is no federal standing. What there is is “malicious prosecution” and misuse of the federal civil court system to harass. The attorneys moving in federal court should check with their malpractice carrier. They may find they have taken on much more than they bargained for.
John Almquist
How much will presbytery spend to keep churches in the PCUSA?
Posted Friday, February 23, 2007
I just finished reading the article, “Case back in state court; presbytery’s tactics rebuked.”
When I composed myself from the belly laugh I got – the U.S. District Judge Michael P. Mills seems to have hit the nail on the head with regard to the tactics employed by the attorney for St. Andrews Presbytery – my mind began to raise some salient questions. It made me want to ask just how much money the presbytery is willing to invest in trying to coerce people to stay in the PCUSA. Of course, maybe the lawyer is working for free, in which case I wondered if the legal term that can be applied to this representation is pro bozo.
Rev. Bill Pawson Westminster Community Church , Canton, Ohio, A Confessing Church
Reinvent the old PCUS instead of reinventing the PCUSA
Posted Friday, February 23, 2007
If this conference wants to reinvent the PCUSA, they need to go back to the standards of the old Presbyterian denomination. When the PCUS (the old Southern denomination) joined in with the PCUSA, we lost our standards which were true Reformed theology: The Five Solas. We lost the meaning of what Presbyterians believed in. We need to reinvent the old PCUS instead of reinventing the PCUSA.
Charles Freeman
Bravo!’ for Santa Barbara and other presbyteries
Posted Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Bravo! for the resolutions of Santa Barbara Presbytery and the 23 other presbyteries that will stand up for the Lord Jesus Christ, and have adopted the ordination standards of the constitutional Presbyterian churches.
So, where are the other presbyteries? It is time to stand up and be counted. You will be required to do that at the end of your life, in any case, why not now?
Remember – under G-11.0103, G-4.0300, G-8.0400, and G-8.0600 of the Book of Order – it is the presbyteries under the PCUSA constitution that have the authority to determine ordination standards and property rights. For those at the synod and GAC level who do not understand that, then refer to your state statutes. You will find that under every state’s statutes, that the constitutions of nonprofit corporations are enforceable and injunctions against corporate officers who overstep their enumerated authority will be issued by state courts.
Put on the breast plate of righteousness, pick up the sword of the of the Word of God, put on the helmet of salvation, and let’s go to truly fight the good fight, once and for all.
John Almquist
Why should we trust them?
Posted Tuesday, February 20, 2007
The energy and heat generated by PUP and the administrative fiat by the corrupt elite need to be viewed from a different perspective. The issue for the conservative evangelicals is not so much if a church may choose to ordain non-celibate, sexually active homosexuals and lesbians, but if they choose not too.
Our history does not suggest that the diversity, inclusiveness, pluralism and freedom of thought which have been enshrined as sacraments by Louisville and their minions extend to any who question their orthodoxy.
The history of the church, primarily the old Northern UPC in the 1970s, does not bode well for the faithful. In their zeal to establish female ordination as the law of the land, the old UPC engaged in what can only be called a pogrom and selective persecution of those who would disagree. Clergy and ruling elders were hounded, bullied, brought to church trial, exiled, or otherwise marginalized by so the so-called “loving majority.”
The same architects of that policy are still entrenched on Witherspoon Drive and in many presbyteries. If ever granted the same authority, or if they thought they could get away with it, they would apply the same treatment to the faithful as they did 30 years ago. They did not feel they needed to listen to any dissenting voices then, do not be fooled now and buy their calls for dialogue and reconciliation.
Look at “The Louisville Papers” on church property, look at the last two letters from the home office with veiled threats and warnings. The same evil is be unleashed again on any or all who does not bow on bended knee to Louisville or give the pinch of incense to Caesar.
Rev. Dr. Peter Gregory Washington, D.C.