PCUSA is missing the ‘other side’ of issue
Posted Friday, February 26, 2010
“In his statement, Parsons also echoed past GA actions and defended the Palestinian position.”
Has anyone ever considered defending the Israeli position? Having to deal with a bunch of lunatic, homicidal bombers and rockets being shot into your country is more than an “inconvenience” or “humiliation.”
The Jews have every right to be frightened. They’ve lived with more than a thousand years of persecution mostly coming from whom they see as “Christians” (From laws and edicts against them in the 4th Century, the Crusades, the Blood Libels, the Conspiracy Theories, the Inquisition, Luther’s anti-semitic rants in 1543 where he called for everything Hitler did except for gas chambers and crematoriums … and the fact that out of 14,000 evangelical pastors in Germany in 1938, only 800 refused to sign the Nazi oath.
God forgive us.
On the list of committee members on the Israel issue, all but one appears to be raging anti-Israelists. Where is “fair and balanced” on this committee? Hopefully, the GA will toss their recommendations out. God help us if they don’t.
Once the rockets and homicide bombings stop, the “wall” will come down. I do find it interesting though that now Egypt has erected a “wall” cutting off Gaza. Could it possibly be that the Palestinians are a threat to them also?
Israel is not the “bad guy” in this scenario, it’s the corrupt leadership they have as well as having their “Arab brothers” using them as pawns.
P.S. One of my closest friends was having lunch on a beautiful day in Haifa eight years ago. The restaurant was owned by an Arab and a Jew so it should have been safe. A beautiful 29-year-old Palestinian attorney finished her meal and came over and stood between Galit’s table and another one with small children and detonated herself. Galit will never walk again, her right hand was destroyed. Asaf, her 11-year-old son was killed, as was her 11-year-old nephew, her brother and her parents. So needless to say, as a Presbyterian, I am infuriated when I see all the fawning over Palestinians and their “plight.” There are two sides to this story.
Monica McMillen Fort Worth, Texas
All scruples are not created equal
Posted Friday, February 26, 2010
I was very angry when I read that the John Knox Presbytery voted 81-25 to ordain Scott Anderson. Mr. Anderson, an openly gay-identified ministerial candidate, invoked an “Affirmation of Conscience” declaring a scruple to G-6.0106(b), which requires all PCUSA officers to be faithful in marriage between a man and a woman or chaste in singleness.
Since the John Knox Presbytery voted to affirm the ordination of Mr. Anderson, thereby disregarding the clear teaching of Scripture on homosexuality and our Book of Order as it relates to ordination standards, I am demanding that the Executive Presbyter, Ken Meunier, and the Stated Clerk, Alyson Janke, of the John Knox Presbytery write letters of apology to those persons who were told they could not minister in our denomination because they had scruples against ordaining women. I know two Godly servants of Jesus Christ who were told by their respective presbytery in the early 1980s that they could not minister within the UPCUSA because they believed Biblically that women should not be ordained. They scrupled their presbytery and were denied ordination. I also remember when the Presbytery of Denver redid the locks of South Presbyterian Church because the senior pastor, staff and elders had Biblical scruples against the ordination of women. Because of this unloving and inappropriate behavior by the presbytery the members had to find another place to worship.
At one time in our denomination local presbyteries took action to deal with those individuals and churches that had Biblical scruples concerning the ordination of women. In regard to the homosexual ordination issue, individuals, local churches, PLGC and MLP have been for years “thumbing their collective noses” at the Book of Order. They dared COMs to take action. It is clear that presbyteries have been frightened by those who advocate the ordination of homosexually-identified persons. And so, Scott Anderson, an openly gay-identified man, is now allowed to move toward ordination within the PCUSA because of his scruple while other gifted persons, who also scrupled our denomination, were told to leave. It is apparent that some scruples have more potency than others.
I know the names of the men who were “drop kicked” out of the UPCUSA as well as the Denver pastor who was locked out of his church. I can find their addresses. I will give them to the Executive Presbyter and Stated Clerk of the John Knox Presbytery so they can write letters of apology to the persons our denomination would not allow to serve because of their particular scruple.
Jeff Winter, pastor FaithMV Church, Martha’s Vineyard, Mass.
Division on LGBTs mirrors slavery debate
Posted Friday, February 26, 2010
This internal division in denominations large and small over participation by openly homosexual members mirrors the similar division among Presbyterians (and Baptists and others) into northern (anti-slavery) and southern (pro-slavery) camps in the mid-19th century, both citing, of course, irrefutable Biblical texts in support of their respective positions. Eventually, the Presbyterians, at least, re-united and the pro-slavery camp just forgot about why they had made such a fuss.
There is the difference, of course, that every congregation has (or had) the same proportion of homosexual members, while 19th century southern churches seldom admitted blacks. In both cases, the excluded move to more liberal denominations, or form their own, or give up on religion altogether.
Sincerely,
Chris Vogel
Seminaries undermine pastors’ confidence in Scripture
Posted Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Our denomination’s seminaries feature anti-Christian speakers such as Margaret R. Miles and Rosemary Radford Ruether, and then our leaders have the gall to wonder why our denomination continues to hemorrhage members year after year. Our denomination’s seminaries, which are supposed to be bastions of Christian learning, are instead undermining our future pastors’ confidence in the Scriptures and inculcating a philosophy of anything-but-Biblical-Christianity. Our denomination’s seminaries, which are supposed to belong to the Lord and follow His direction, instead empty His name of the meaning the Bible invests it with and fill it with their own meaning. O that the Lord Jesus would do to the unbelieving faculties in His seminaries that which He did to the moneychangers in His Temple (Matthew 21:12-17, Mark 11:15-19, Luke 19:45-48, John 2:13-22).
And with respect to Professor Miles’ drivel, “As (Jesus) said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!’ But He said, ‘Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!’” (Luke 11.27-28)
Loren Golden Overland Park, Kan.
The Lord works in mysterious ways
Posted Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Thank you so much for calling attention to the interesting, thought provoking, and very well written article by Margaret Miles from the January 2008 Christian Century. Seeing in a new light what has become commonplace for us is always stimulating. Miles review of the shifting symbols used by Christians and the Church was enlightening, and her conclusion that “both images of the crucifixion and images of the lactating Virgin visualize bodies as capable of communicating Christianity’s central message – God’s love for humanity. It may well be that both images are needed…” is without doubt worthy of consideration.
I suppose that your intention with a moderately inflammatory headline and an attempt to associate the author with so-called “radical chic” was quite different, and perhaps you imagined that no one would actually bother to read the Christian Century article. But then, the Lord works in mysterious ways, as they say.
David Carothers Harrisonburg, Va.
Spirit of enlightenment?
Posted Tuesday, February 23, 2010
John Knox presbytery has an interesting way of “celebrating” Lent by approving the ordination of Scott Anderson. The “Spirit of Enlightenment” seems to not only close doors, but also hearts and minds.
Those who have the “mind of Christ,” do not need to withdraw into executive session gatherings. Rather, we strive to live humbly and openly proclaiming that by the Spirit sanctification is a breathtaking journey with a Holy God.
Daily we live with the dynamic of our first Adamic and second Adamic natures. How does that play out for people like Mr. Anderson?
What, one wonders, does “Victory in Jesus” look like? Perhaps it is expressed through a “love” that is contrary to the nature, the character, and the Word of God.
Heading off to the gym, I will further meditate on “Your Word is truth” (John 17:17)
In the spirit of Lent,
Jerry Voss
How long will you stay in fellowship with nonbelievers?
Posted Tuesday, February 23, 2010
I genuinely appreciate your perseverance, and tireless efforts to turn the PCUSA around and see her re-established on a Biblical foundation, but in light of the statistics published in your last issue (“nearly half of PCUSA pastors (45 percent) and a majority of “specialized clergy” (60 percent) surveyed disagree that “only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved.” Approximately 1 in 5 in both categories answered “neutral” or “not sure,” making the totals that do not “agree” with the statement as 65 percent for pastors and 78 percent for specialized clergy.) I need to raise the question, “How long will you continue in fellowship with unbelievers?” Is there a “tipping point?” Is there a time when you “shake the dust off of your feet” (Matthew 10:14)?
I realize that you have asked yourselves this question more times than you can probably count, but with statistics like these, I don’t see how you can deny the truth that this once vibrant body of believers is now a rotting corpse from which you need to extricate yourselves.
I pray for you every time I get my copy of The Layman, and will continue to do so. May God give you wisdom.
Yours in Him,
Pastor Bill Slack River of Life Presbyterian Church (OPC), Phillipsburg, N.J.
New Layman format lacks depth
Posted Tuesday, February 23, 2010
I am disappointed in the new format. I find the articles lack important details. Since most don’t give background information or details to really understand the story. I also feel that the overall reduction in content reduces the value of the publication.
The new “Equipping for Ministry in the 21st Century” to be a very nice addition.
Tom Mueller
PCUSA just like U.S. Congress
Posted Tuesday, February 23, 2010
After spending some time reading the articles and letters to the editor in the current online issue of The Layman I have concluded that the state of the Presbyterian Church is not unlike that of the U.S. Congress.
A house cleaning is in order and the sooner the better. The longer the current behavior continues the more destruction will occur.
Thank you for your hard work.
Respectfully,
Richard F. Mackintosh. M.S.W., Th.M.
Machen has been the champion for conservative Presbyterians
Posted Tuesday, February 16, 2010
I have so many emotions related to the advertised conference in Omaha to discuss “Christianity and Liberalism.” My first reaction is simply: Finally.
Dr. Machen has been the champion for conservative Presbyterians since the 1920s. He has documented with laser accuracy the predictable outcomes of the liberal agenda in the church. In all my conversations with Presbyterians who cherish the preaching of the cross of Christ, Machen is universally regarded as a hero. Every student of history and Christian theology must wrestle with his text!
I hope we can bring this same conference to Southern California!
In God’s light we see light! Rev. Kent Moorlach Communion Presbyterian Church, Irvine
Conference a little late for some
Posted Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Don’t you think you are a little late to the game? What took you so long? This was dealt with by some over 70 years ago. There are a lot of Presbyterians that are living the separation from the religion of liberalism. Why not just jump ahead and join them? It would seem that you are starting back in 1924. How quickly do you think you will make up the past 80-plus years?
I wish you well. I wish I were more encouraged.
Kenley Leslie Key West, Fla.
The church is at fault
Posted Tuesday, February 16, 2010
I read the article posted in The Layman (page 2, February 2010). The Church is guilty for this situation because it is not working to teach and testify the good news in Jesus Christ. The Church is not a social club like the world would have it. The Church is a community of believers in Jesus as our Savior and the son of God. The world does not believe in Jesus and this is the fault of the Church. I believe that Jesus is the only Savior of humans.
Angel Vega First Presbyterian Church in San German, Puerto Rico
Do Massachusetts pastors work for the state or Christ?
Posted Wednesday, February 10, 2010
What is it about “to be in the world but not of the world” that they don’t understand? Seems to me that pastors in Massachusetts need to consider their vows and determine who they work for … the state or Christ.
Bob Jessen Mt. Holly, N.C.
Should pastors follow state’s marriage parameters?
Posted Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Let me see if I have the logic straight on the Boston overture: Since the state has the right to establish legal parameters concerning marriage, I must follow all parameters concerning marriage that the state sets. Therefore if the state establishes a law stating that marriage between two people of the same gender is legal, then I as a pastor cannot deny them that right.
If this is true, then I cannot deny any couple who approaches me for a wedding – same gender or not – in fact, I could not legally deny any wedding because if I do, then I step on the couples’ rights. Yet, pastors say no to weddings every day. Perhaps their schedule is too full, or perhaps they won’t perform a wedding for a couple where one person is believer and the other is not a believer, or perhaps they sense the bride-to-be is a “bridezilla.” The fact is a pastor can say no to weddings every day, can these pastors be charged with a crime in doing so?
If we extend the logic used by the fine folks in Boston, then pastors must follow all of the parameters that might be set by the state concerning marriage. The state could further define marriage as legal between multiple partners, otherwise known as polygamy. A pastor would be required to perform a polygamous wedding because the state establishes polygamy as legal whether the pastor agrees with polygamy or not.
If we follow this logic to its core, we find that we must obey the state in all matters, not just matters of marriage. It doesn’t matter if what the state declares legal is against my religion, my morality, my conscience or even the Bible, I must follow the parameters set by the state, because the state is the ultimate authority.
For a deeper historical insight into the logic presented by the Boston overture, please review the biography of a famous leader of the 20th century, Adolf Hitler, and his leadership in the parameters concerning the legal status of Jews and the state of Germany.
Rev. Peter Loughman
Needing clarity on Layman’s stance
Posted Thursday, February 4, 2010
Congratulations on your 45 years in ministry as noted in the commentary you published by Stephen Brown. His article I think did give some good background on how The Layman came about with the adoption of the Confession of 1967 by the United Presbyterian Church which later became part of the confessions of the PCUSA. This raises some interesting questions.
Does The Layman and more importantly its supporters within the PCUSA today support the Confession of 1967 while the founders of The Layman obviously did not? It is important to have some clarity on this.
I’m only asking because in some of the debates in this forum I read, I get the impression that some believe that others in the PCUSA that don’t follow their line of thinking are not following the Confessions. Yet it seems to me The Layman doesn’t really accept the Confession of 1967 – correct me if I’m wrong. And if the answer is yes, The Layman doesn’t accept the Constitution of the PCUSA that includes the Confessions.
It is clear to me that The Layman believes in the authority of Scripture and this is also true of other Presbyterians in the middle and left. There is no point in discussing this.
I think The Layman owes it to all of us to be clear on where it stands regarding the Confessions of 1967 today in its entirety as well as the other Confessions.
Yours in Christ,
Earl C. Apel Cincinnati, Ohio
Editor’s note: Mr. Apel is correct in his recollection that the Presbyterian Lay Committee, whose members were ordained as elders committed to the Westminster Confession of Faith, opposed the creation and adoption of The Book of Confessions as part of the denomination’s constitution. Additionally, the Lay Committee opposed granting constitutional authority to The Confession of 1967, a document that was included in The Book of Confessions.
The Lay Committee believed that in adopting a Book of Confessions, the denomination replaced a clearly defined constitutional standard with a library, and that the inclusion of The Confession of 1967 in that library so broadened the scope of our common confession as to render any purported constitutional status meaningless.
Commenting on The Confession of 1967, the Lay Committee said: “The new statement expresses the view that God was active in His Son, who is the living Word, and that the Bible is the ‘unique and authoritative’ testimony of men to what God did in His Son. But the high quality of the Scriptures resides only in the fact that it was written by men who happened to be Jesus’ earliest disciples and in some cases eyewitnesses of that about which they wrote. According to this view, the Bible is not the Word of God, but only a witness (and a potentially fallible one) to the Word of God.” (The Presbyterian Layman, Vol. 1, No. 1, January, 1968)
“Is the Bible God’s Word?” continued the Lay Committee, “or does the Bible become God’s Word only when He speaks to me through it? This is more than an academic mater. It is a question of authority … The new view gives authority to our subjective experience of God speaking; the earlier view subjects the church officer and the church to the objective written Word of God. The crucial point of dispute in the church as a whole today is that of final authority, and our denomination has just changed its position.”
The Presbyterian Lay Committee has not changed its position on this matter. In fact, the denomination’s documented drift away from Biblical standards of Reformed faith since 1967 validates the accuracy of the committee’s assessment.
Today, the PCUSA officially declares that the Book of Confessions is its constitution. But functionally, her people do not share a confessing faith in such basic Christian beliefs as: (1) The Bible is the Word of God written; and (2) Jesus alone is the way of salvation. The PCUSA pays obeisance to a library whose contents are in several respects contradictory and it has so thoroughly embraced the philosophy of deconstruction that none of these documents is allowed to say what they mean and mean what they say.
Consonant with its Reformed forbearers, the Presbyterian Lay Committee declares “Sola Scriptura,” and it celebrates as penultimate authorities those Reformed confessions of faith affirmed by its forbearers that have proven themselves true to God’s Word written.