PLC is not welcome in Beaufort
Posted Wednesday, November 30, 2011
First Presbyterian Church does not welcome you to Beaufort for the purposes of dividing our congregation as you are planning. Are you planning on bringing your white hoods with you? Be ready for protestors!
Colin Kinton
Editor’s note: The Presbyterian Lay Committee and the Concerned Presbyterians of the Low Country are sponsoring a Dec. 4 event at the Holiday Inn in Beaufort to discuss the state of the PCUSA. Featured speakers will be Carmen Fowler LaBerge and Parker T. Williamson.
College president makes statement about Secular Student Alliance
Posted Wednesday, November 30, 2011
May we ask that Presbyterian College president Dr. John Griffith’s response to questions re: the Secular Student Alliance be printed in its entirety as a letter to the editor? Here is Dr. Griffith’s statement:
“The Secular Student Alliance at Presbyterian College is an approved Registered Student Organization at PC — one of dozens representing a wide variety of student interests, including five that are faith-based. This organization followed every protocol required of it to become an RSO and has been approved by each appropriate level of governance. As for its funding, each RSO is eligible to apply for limited funding for events or programs that are open to the entire community. These funds are derived from student fees and are subject on a case-by-case basis to the approval of the Student Government Association.
“Presbyterian College’s stated mission as a church-related liberal arts college remains the development of our students’ mental, physical, moral, and spiritual capacities within the framework of the Christian faith. That has not changed and will not change.
“Course requirements in both Old and New Testament remain part of our general education curriculum, thus we remain faithful to our stated goal of acquainting students with the teachings and values of the Christian faith. We also maintain a stated goal of helping our students ‘attain a sense of dignity, self-worth, and appreciation of other persons of diverse backgrounds.’
“As an institution of higher learning predicated on the Christian faith, we are committed to providing an educational experience in the top ranks of the academic mainstream that engages the world community. Thus, we welcome to campus all who affirm our mission and are willing to engage our church-related, total educational experience. This includes our students who hold to a variety of faith traditions and those with no specific faith stance. As a Christian community, we support all of our students in the same manner and hold them accountable to highest standards of honor, integrity and service to the community at large.
“We recognize that the college years are a time of intellectual, social, and spiritual growth and examination and we will continue to provide a safe and nurturing environment for students to explore their God-given talents.”
Hal Milam Director of Media Relations, Presbyterian College
TULIP, PETA or DNC?
Posted Wednesday, November 30, 2011
An OPC pastor, Bill Slack wrote and asked if you can be ordained in the Presbyterian Church (USA) if you don’t endorse TULIP. I suspect that in today’s PCUSA, you’re more likely to be granted ordination if you endorse PETA or the DNC rather than TULIP.
Larry Brown African Bible College
TULIP is good common sense and theology
Posted Wednesday, November 30, 2011
The letter you posted by Pastor Bill Slack caught my interest in his use of the acronym TULIP in his responding to thoughts you published by Janet Edwards. I hate to say it but I had never heard of this acronym so had to look it up. Well it is a good old Calvinist acronym which includes the following (summary not complete):
Total Depravity: Sin has affected all parts of man.
Unconditional Election: God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom. 9:15, 21).
Limited Atonement: Jesus died only for the elect.
Irresistible Grace: When God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist.
Perseverance of the Saints: You cannot lose your salvation.
I particularly appreciate the last point where one cannot lose salvation. And isn’t it wonderful to know we can’t even resist salvation!
I have to admit to being a former Arminian (is that the right term?) before I became Presbyterian or reformed.
What is interesting I think about TULIP that so many ignore, is that God is in complete control and is the only one that knows who is elected or not. Yet it is common for Christians (humans who are fallible and fall short of the glory of God) to assume that they know who is elected or not. Some will claim to be an official speaker for God on this matter in fact.
Being a gardener I like the acronym TULIP. For it is a bulb you plant into the ground in the fall and have the faith that over the winter when everything has died a beautiful flower will appear in the spring around Easter time or after. And believe it or not, if that bulb should not make it or even rot, it will give new life to something else in the end that will grow forth from that soil. It’s part of that irresistible grace where God elects, and life cannot resist. God never gives up so something will grow in the end. It’s just like the death and resurrection of Jesus.
I can’t speak for all ordained persons in the PCUSA, but being an ordained deacon I do believe in TULIP. And I wouldn’t be surprised if all other ordained persons or in the PCUSA do as well. It’s just good common sense and theology. Thanks for reminding me and others of this.
Earl C. Apel, member Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church, Cincinnati, Ohio
Interpretation of life and of Scripture is inevitable
Posted Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Thank you for the privilege of responding to the comments of Charles Jeffrey posted on November 17 related to my letter of November 14, 2011 and Pastor Bill Slack’s letter of November 21.
I am very glad Slack identified himself as part of the OPC, Orthodox Presbyterian Church, for that helps explain his presumption that Presbyterian ministers all subscribe to TULIP
In my presbytery, as perhaps in many others, one of the perennial questions asked of candidates for ordination is their position on universal salvation versus limited atonement (The “L” in TULIP). I understand that there is only one acceptable answer to this in the OPC. However, in the PCUSA, even in my conservative presbytery, it is a settled matter that the more important thing than the answer is the candidate’s support for their perspective in Scripture and tradition.
For my part, I hold fast to the places where Scripture says, “God so loved the world (John 3:16)” and “God is love (1 John 4:16)” and pray my words and practice reflect that hopeful and beautiful message.
This example of my presbytery in action also highlights the PCUSA’s grace-filled tradition of discerning God’s will, together, which honors all our faithful points of view. That no one person knows the mind of God is something we can cherish together.
Of course, honoring all faithful points of view also presents a challenge when an individual shares their perspective with an insistence that theirs is not, at heart, a point of view. This is something I see in the forefront of Jeffrey’s response to me.
How do we keep people who see their position as the only possible one engaged in the historic Presbyterian deliberative process with the rest of us? I treasure the answers your readers may have to this crucial question.
Also, as an aside, I shared Jeffery’s previous letter (and pungent imagery directed at me) with one of my friends, another Presbyterian minister. She said to me: “Janet, you are fertilizer!” We had a good laugh about this alternative interpretation. Our take on Jeffery’s view does not mean I condone name calling – it has not, over the years, brought us together and will not move us forward.
I hope that Jeffery and others reading realize how seriously I take these conversations. I respond here because I sincerely want to grow, reconcile, and yes, “fertilize” the PCUSA. So perhaps that means I am, in a way, what Jeffery calls me – I am serving as fertilizer so that our church may be a spring garden (complete with both TULIPs and other flowers) glorifying God in our beauteous variety.
Rev. Dr. Janet Edwards
Letter writer showed remarkable myopia in his treatment of Old Testament laws
Posted Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Jim Moore, in his Nov. 17 letter, shows remarkable myopia in his treatment of Old Testament laws regarding adultery and sexual immorality in claiming, “There is a double standard in the way sexual transgressions are classified and punished. … There is no corresponding law for virgin men, and married men are only forbidden sex with other men’s wives.”
Before proceeding, following Moore’s precedent, I should first make a full disclosure: I believe the Scripture, in its original manuscripts, to be inerrant. I agree with John Calvin, who wrote, “This is the first clause, that we owe to the Scripture the same reverence which we owe to God; because it proceeded from him alone, and has nothing belonging to man mixed with it.” (Commentary on II Tim. 3.16) And I agree with the Westminster divines, who wrote, “The infallible interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.” And again, “The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.” (WCF Ch. I §9-§10) And I disagree with the UPCUSA theologians, who wrote, “The Scriptures … are nevertheless the words of men, conditioned by the language, thought forms, and literary fashions of the places and times at which they were written. They reflect views of life, history, and the cosmos which were then current. The church, therefore, has an obligation to approach the Scriptures with literary and historical understanding.” (PCUSA BoC §9.29) By this last phrase, I understand the UPCUSA theologians to refer to the tools of literary and historical criticism, which are often highly subjective and have frequently been used to undermine confidence in the text of the Bible as the Word of God. And I reject the dictates of literary and historical criticism, which are the “doctrines and commandments of men” from which God, who “alone is Lord of the conscience”, has left the conscience free (WCF Ch. XX §2), to the extent that they twist, distort, or deny the plain meaning of the text of Scripture. Consequently, I believe that those who submit their consciences to the tools of literary and historical criticism and who thus grant those tools authority over the Scripture to twist, distort, or deny the plain meaning of the text of Scripture, are, in Moore’s words, “terribly, terribly wrong.”
Now, let us consider Scripture’s proscriptions against sexual immorality, beginning with Dt. 22.13-29. The first part of this passage has to do with the reputation of Israel’s virgin women and the “cloth”, as Moore put it, that a married woman’s parents were obligated to produce in the event that her husband accused her of infidelity before her wedding. The “cloth” was the bedsheets on which the newlywed couple engaged in sexual intercourse on their wedding night, which would thereafter be stained with a large amount of bodily fluids. An absence of these fluids would strongly suggest that they had been spilt by another man, accusing the wife of infidelity. This evidence is based upon God’s design of female anatomy, and one would be hard-pressed to find a similar test to demonstrably prove that the husband had or had not been unfaithful. The issue, then, is not so much that this law unfairly targets women, as Moore alleges, but rather that God’s design of female anatomy makes women subject to this test in a way that men are not. If one is to question God’s wisdom in including this commandment in His Word, one should likewise question His wisdom in His creation of female anatomy. “But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise.” (I Cor. 1.27) “For the foolishness of God is wiser than men.” (I Cor. 1.25)
Again, Moore wrote, “Yes, there are laws punishing any man, except for the (future) husband, for having sex with a virgin or married woman.” Consider the case of Joseph and Mary. We know from Scripture that Mary’s pregnancy was supernatural—she was pregnant without having engaged in sexual intercourse (Is. 7.14, Mt. 1.18-25, Lk. 1.26-38). Yet the citizens of Nazareth were not privy to the angels’ revelations to Joseph and Mary, and by all appearances, Joseph had impregnated Mary. And this was long remembered, for on one occasion when they were arguing with Jesus, the Pharisees said to Him, “We were not born of sexual immorality.” (Jn. 8.41) In the context in which the Pharisees said this, Jesus had just accused them of not being Abraham’s children but rather of “doing what (their) father did”, in seeking to kill Him, for “this is not what Abraham did”. As He would make explicit, He was accusing them of being children of the devil. In this, He was speaking of them as spiritual sons, not physical, and the Pharisees’ reference to not having been “born of sexual immorality” was a reference to the appearance of sexual immorality between Mary and Joseph that was the only option left when the Virgin Birth was disbelieved. Thus, the Old Testament laws concerning sexual immorality were interpreted by the experts in the Law in Jesus’ day to mean that it was a sin for a betrothed couple to engage in sexual intercourse before exchanging vows and entering into the covenant of marriage, for it would have “brought a bad name upon a virgin of Israel.” (Dt. 22.19)
Moreover, Moore wrote, “There is a loophole in the Mosaic law that allows for the existence of prostitution. There is nothing in the Mosaic law forbidding a woman who is divorced or widowed from becoming a prostitute, nor is there anything forbidding men, married or single, from having sex with a prostitute. So, a young man can visit prostitutes, marry one or more eligible Israelite women and then continue to visit prostitutes after the marriage with no necessary legal consequences whatsoever. Prostitution was certainly frowned upon as it is in every other human society, but there is a huge difference between disapproving of behavior and punishing it with the force of law.”
There quite simply is no legitimacy to this outrageous claim. In Dt. 23.17 it is written, “None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute.” “Daughters of Israel” is not restricted to virgin daughters of Israelite families and married Israelite women. Moreover, in Lev. 19.29 it is written, “Do not profane your daughter by making her a prostitute, lest the land fall into prostitution and the land become full of depravity.” Here, the Lord not only gives the commandment that the daughters of Israel must not be profaned by becoming prostitutes, He also gives the explanation of the principle behind the law. He does not want the land to become polluted by prostitution. From this principle, it therefore follows that the Lord regards all prostitution—whether as the woman giving herself as a prostitute, or as the man who visits the prostitute—as sin.
Consider Israel’s sin at Peor. Having failed to curse Israel at Balak’s request (Num. 22-24), Balaam advised him to bring prostitutes into the Israelite camp to lure the Israelites into sexual immorality (Num. 25, 31.16) Thus, “While Israel lived in Shittim, the people began to whore with the daughters of Moab. … So Israel yoked himself to Baal of Peor. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel. And the LORD said to Moses, ‘Take all the chiefs of the people and hang (or impale) them in the sun before the LORD.’ And Moses said to the judges of Israel, ‘Each of you kill those of his men who have yoked themselves to Baal of Peor.’” And the Lord also sent a plague to ravage the children of Israel for their sin. “And behold, one of the people of Israel and brought a Midianite woman to his family in the sight of Moses and in the sight of the whole congregation of the people of Israel.” But Phinehas took a spear and impaled both the man and the Midianite prostitute with it. Thus, the plague, which had consumed 24,000 Israelites was stopped. “And the LORD said to Moses, ‘Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the people of Israel, in that he was jealous with my jealousy among them, so that I did not consume the people of Israel in my jealousy.” (Num. 25.1-11) Some “loophole”!
Regardless of any temporal penalty that pertains to the Judicial Law, which is passed away with the state of Ancient Israel as the covenant people of God (see WCF Ch. XIX §4 and proof texts), prostitution is a from of sexual immorality and thus a sin in the sight of God. Nor should we look only to the Pentateuch in isolation from the rest of Scripture when considering God’s Moral Law. Prov. 5-7 contains extensive warnings against visiting prostitutes, calling them “adulteresses”. The Apostle Paul wrote, “The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. … Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For as it is written, ‘The two will become one flesh.’” (I Cor. 6.13-16) And again, referring to the incident in Num. 25, “We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and 23,000 fell in a single day.” (I Cor. 10.8) Likewise, the Lord Jesus said to the Church in Pergamum, “I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might … commit sexual immorality.” (Rev. 2.14)
Do not be deceived! The one who searches the Scriptures looking for loopholes in the Moral Law is like the Pharisees, who had an external righteousness, but their hearts were far from God. (Mt. 15.1-9). But neither is the Lord pleased when those who claim to be His servants undermine His Moral Law, saying, “Sexual immorality and homosexuality are not sins. Indeed, the Holy Spirit is leading the Church to no longer regard them as sins.” Such are like the Sadducees, who “know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.” (Mt. 22.29)
Consider why the Lord gave us sexual intercourse. First and most obviously, it is only through sexual intercourse between a man and a woman (modern medical techniques withstanding) that children are conceived. “Did (God) not make (husband and wife) one with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring.” (Mal. 2.15) And it is just as obvious that no homosexual coupling can possibly produce children. Now it is true that procreation is not the only way to bring children into a Christian family, for there is also adoption, just as the Lord God has adopted us Gentiles into His family through Christ. And although there are couples who struggle to conceive, it is not impossible, for Scripture is replete with examples of couples who struggled for years to conceive before the Lord miraculously intervened and opened barren wombs (Gen. 15, 17-18, 21.1-7, 25.20-26, 29.31-30.24, Judg. 13, I Sam. 1, Lk. 1.5-25,57). But He is not going to miraculously allow homosexuals, who defy His Moral Law whenever they engage in sexual intercourse, to thus conceive. And so, homosexuals who wish to have children are forced to resort to other measures: either petitioning the state to allow same-gender couples to adopt, or conceiving a child outside their union—by lesbians impregnating themselves with a man’s semen or male homosexuals making use of a surrogate mother. And it should be noted that children—even adopted children—who are raised by same-gender “parents” are statistically more likely to suffer from same-gender sexual attraction than children raised in a home by their father and mother (F. Tasker & S. Golombok, “Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families”, Developmental Psychology 31 [1995], p. 213). Not only does this provide evidence against the homosexualist claim that children are born with a genetic disposition either for or against same-gender sexual attraction, but it nurtures an environment that encourages this sinful behavior.
Second, and ultimately more importantly, God gave us sexual intercourse as the sign and seal of the covenant of marriage, just as He gave baptism and the Lord’s Supper as the signs and seals of the new covenant in Jesus’ blood (Mt. 26.26-29, Lk. 22.15-20, Rom. 6.3-4, I Cor. 1.23-29). And just as it is sin to eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner (I Cor. 11.27-29), so, too, it is sin to engage in sexual intercourse with anyone to whom one is not committed in the covenant of marriage (Heb. 13.4).
The marriage covenant was ordained by God before the Fall to be between one man and one woman (Gen. 2.18-25). Polygamy and divorce, despite being regulated by the Judicial Law (Lev. 18.18, Dt. 17.17, 24.1-4), are violations of this one-flesh principle (Mal. 2.13-16, Mt. 19.1-9, I Tim. 3.2,12, Tit. 1.6), as are adultery and all forms of sexual immorality (Ex. 20.14, Lev. 18, Dt. 5.18, 22.13-29, Prov. 5-7, Mt. 5.27-32, 15.18-20, Acts 15.20,29, Rom. 1.24-27, 13.13-14, I Cor. 5, 6.9-20, Gal. 5.19-21, Eph. 5.3-5, Col. 3.5-6, I Thess. 4.3-8, I Tim. 1.9-10, Heb. 13.4, II Pet. 2.6-10, Jude 7, Rev. 2.14,20-22, 21.8, 22.15).
Now, we must not treat the marriage covenant lightly, as if it were ours to tamper or experiment with as we please—to redefine it from being between one man and one woman to being between two people of indiscriminate gender. “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Mt. 19.4-6) The marriage covenant is ordained of God, not man, and He has invested it and the individual roles of husband and wife with transcendent meaning.
As with many things established by God in this world, the marriage covenant serves as “a copy and shadow of the heavenly things” (Heb. 8.5). Indeed, the marriage covenant is dissolved at death and does not continue in the age to come (Mt. 22.30, Rom. 7.1-3, I Cor. 7.39). It is invested with meaning by God that is relevant for this present age and may not be broken at our whim or disregarded at our discretion. Nevertheless, like the Law, from which “not an iota, not a dot, will pass … until all is accomplished” (Mt. 5.18), the marriage covenant is “but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities” (Heb. 10.1).
The reality to which the marriage covenant points, and of which it is “a copy and shadow”, is the union in the Resurrection of Christ and the Church. And it is the husband, not the wife, who represents Christ, and the wife, not the husband, who represents the Church (Eph. 5.22-33, II Cor. 11.2, Rev. 19.6-9, 21.1-27, 22.17). This is why Paul and Peter give such explicit instructions to Christian husbands and wives on how to behave toward one another (Eph. 5.22-33, I Pet. 3.1-7), for thus they demonstrate to one another, to their children, and to the community around them the love Christ has for the Church and the obedience the Church is obligated to show to Christ.
Moreover, idolatry, where the (former) people of God forsake the worship of the Lord to worship other gods, is likened unto adultery and prostitution (Jer. 3.6-11, 23.10, Ezek. 16.32, 23.37, Hos. 1.2, Rev. 17.1-19.5). The Church, in this present age, represents the betrothed virgin Bride of Christ, who awaits His return before the marriage can be consummated. In the meantime, she is required to keep herself unstained by the world (Jas. 1.27), so that the Lord Jesus might present her “to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.” (Eph. 5.27)
Given this context by which the Lord has invested marriage and sexual intercourse with transcendent meaning, homosexuality is seen for what it is in the Lord’s context: an abomination and a perversion of the marriage covenant whereby Christ forsakes the Church and is joined to Himself, or whereby the Church forsakes Christ and is joined to herself.
And thus we see that the Presbyterian Church (USA) has forsaken the Word of Christ, which is the Bible, and has become enamored with her own word—“The Holy Spirit is leading the Church to no longer consider homosexuality to be sin, to redefine marriage, and to allow practicing homosexuals to marry and/or become ordained officers in the Church.” In so doing, she has forsaken Christ, becoming joined to herself, and is holding up a mannequin, saying, “This is the Christ we worship”—a christ emptied of divine authority and who submits himself to the church’s word.
And until the Presbyterian Church (USA) forsakes her idols and returns to Jesus Christ, the Lord and Bridegroom of His Church, submitting herself to His Word instead of reinterpreting it to suit her fancies and worldly presuppositions, there can be no “constructive debate on the rightness or wrongness of gay marriage or ordination.”
Loren Golden Overland Park, KS
Can a person be ordained in the PCUSA if they don’t uphold T.U.L.I.P?
Posted Monday, November 21, 2011
The “Rev. Dr. Janet Edwards” states in her letter of Nov. 14: “At the heart of the gospel message is Jesus’ sacrificial love for the whole world and everyone in it.” I was compelled to use quotes around her title and name when I read that because in its most simplistic expression, the Reformed faith – (which I can only assume Edwards embraces owing to the fact the she claims affiliation with a Reformed and Presbyterian denomination) — declares the Bible to teach “Limited (definite/particular) Atonement.” Jesus’ love is confined to His sheep, as is His ultimate expression of that love, His death on the cross — His substitutionary atonement for our sin. If Edwards does not uphold that truth, to what truth(s) does she adhere? What sort of theological education did she receive? Can a person actually be ordained in the PCUSA if they don’t even uphold T.U.L.I.P?
Pastor Bill Slack River of Life Presbyterian Church (OPC)
The irony of the rebuttal is at least entertaining
Posted Thursday, November 17, 2011
How comforting is consistency! We can always be sure that when Dr. Lowery writes [letter to the editor, posted 11-15-11] one of his “thoughtful and reasoned rebuttals” to Jim Berkley, that the irony at least will be entertaining. I don’t believe that I have ever read anything from Lowry which wasn’t arrogant or dismissive. I would suggest more concern with one’s own plank and less focus on the speck in his brother’s eye.
Rev. Jim Yearsley Tampa
The issue is whether the blanket condemnation of homosexual sex is just
Posted Thursday, November 17, 2011
Full disclosure first: I am a committed supporter of the legitimacy of gay marriage.
It appears that some supporters of the ordination of gay clergy have dismissed the condemnation of homosexual sex in Mosaic law by associating it with “ceremonial” laws that no non-Jewish person seriously considers obligatory today. At least one article and several letters have appeared on The Layman Online recently pointing out that the “ceremonial” laws were fulfilled/abolished at the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ while the “moral” law remains in force, and that the condemnation of homosexual sex is one of these universally and perpetually binding moral laws.
Why someone who supports gay marriage/ordination would make this argument I can’t say for sure. The time-boundness, culture-boundness or covenant-boundness of any or all of the Mosaic law is not really the issue in this case. The real issue is whether the blanket condemnation of homosexual sex is just and right anywhere and anytime.
So, let’s get things out in the open. Those of you who rely on the inerrantist view of the Bible’s authority to justify the blanket condemnation of homosexual sex are terribly, terribly wrong. You presume everything that the law of Moses commands that can be classified as “moral” is absolutely good and right. This does not work and here is one reason why.
The Mosaic law shows a pronounced pattern of “gender asymmetry.” There is a double standard in the way sexual transgressions are classified and punished. Virgin women are forbidden to have sex voluntarily with anyone besides their future, betrothed husband on pain of death. Likewise, married women are forbidden to have sex with anyone besides their spouses on pain of death. There is no corresponding law for virgin men, and married men are only forbidden sex with other men’s wives. Yes, there are laws punishing any man, except for the (future) husband, for having sex with a virgin or married woman. But there is a loophole in the Mosaic law that allows for the existence of prostitution. There is nothing in the Mosaic law forbidding a woman who is divorced or widowed from becoming a prostitute, nor is there anything forbidding men, married or single, from having sex with a prostitute. So, a young man can visit prostitutes, marry one or more eligible Israelite women and then continue to visit prostitutes after the marriage with no necessary legal consequences whatsoever. Prostitution was certainly frowned upon as it is in every other human society, but there is a huge difference between disapproving of behavior and punishing it with the force of law.
This double standard is exacerbated by the laws relating to accusations of adultery. In one case, a woman is subject to trial by ordeal if her husband accuses her of unfaithfulness but has no solid evidence to back up his suspicions (Nu 5:11-31). The woman must “bear the consequences,” i.e. be put to death, if she is found guilty. In another case, the parents of a married woman accused of fornication must produce a “cloth” with evidence of her virginity at the time of marriage (Dt 22:13-21). If the evidence cannot be produced, she is to be put to death. Don’t be distracted by the means used to determine the woman’s guilt or innocence. The key point to notice is that there is no corresponding procedure in the case of a husband suspected of adultery by his wife.
There are plenty of other case laws in the Pentateuch that display the same asymmetry. Now, someone may object, “Yes, but these are civil laws crafted for ancient Israelite culture, not universal and perpetual moral laws.” Totally beside the point. Civil laws have a moral aspect, in that the way laws are enforced tend to promote or impede justice. The pattern of this set of laws is clear: women are punished severely for behaviors that men are not punished for at all. This situation was, is, and always will be immoral, and the statutes written in the Pentateuch left the door wide open for it.
If you are going to defend this state of affairs as a concession to the “hardness of heart” of a male-dominated Israelite culture, the game is up. That works fine if the Pentateuchal code is a human production, not if it is the direct Word of God. Why would God need to make concessions to a male-dominated culture? The laws against idolatry made no concessions whatsoever to a predominantly idolatrous culture. And why would the concessions all tend to put women at greater risk? Isn’t God the defender of the weak and powerless? Or, you could claim that the Israelite jurists, without being told, were supposed to figure out how to extend the case laws to restore symmetry. That the written case laws were extended is beyond doubt, but there is no good evidence that the structure or content of the written laws would lead Israelite jurists to bring punishments for men more in line with punishments for women. It is far simpler to ascribe the “gender asymmetry” to the work of male Israelite legists; God allowed them to infect the Mosaic law with human wickedness.
If this is the case — and much, much more could be said in its favor — then it is folly to take any “moral” law in the Pentateuch as good and right merely because a canonical book tells us God commanded it. Once you acknowledge that fact, we can begin a constructive debate on the rightness or wrongness of gay marriage or ordination.
Jim Moore, ruling elder Worthington Presbyterian Church, Worthington, Pa.
Letter was not ‘dialogue’
Posted Thursday, November 17, 2011
Re: Janet Edwards’ letter to the editor, posted 11-14-11
You misinterpreted my last letter to The Layman as a another “dialogue.” It isn’t. I simply stated the fact that you have sinned against God and His Church. You need to repent and ask for His forgivenes because you are a very wicked and deceiptful woman.
Just to clarify for you. I have been called by God to be a janitor and will be serving as such very soon. I have an expertise in recognizing “excremental messes.” You are an excremental mess with a heavy stench that foolishly celebrates that stench as being a floral fragrance.
Charles Jeffery
Attempt to blame PCUSA’s demise on believers of God’s Word doesn’t ring true
Posted Tuesday, November 15, 2011
How naive, Gradye. Yes, you should have anticipated the reaction after the removal of fidelity and chastity ordination standards. Your intent to blame the demise of the PCUSA on believers of God’s Word doesn’t ring true. As has been said many times, the PCUSA and its leadership have left the true believers, not the other way around as you would suggest. The denomination is merely a politically active group that wants to rewrite God’s Word to more liberal and user friendly audiences.
I did find agreement with the commentator who said “I would like to see departure-gracious or otherwise and let’s get on with the work of being the church.” Why are you fighting that, Gradye?
One more question: Who are these “people who have made promises they haven’t kept?” Ordination vows have been broken by the “progressives” who ignore certain Bible passages. Is that what you refer to?
Bill Arthur Greenville, S.C.
Scripture outlines the end of the ceremonial law and the continuity of the moral law
Posted Tuesday, November 15, 2011
While Rev. Bass-Riley [letter to the editor, posted 11-14-11] was searching “high and low” for the verses that end the purity laws and retain the moral law, he apparently stopped short of Colossians where we read, “He forgave us all our sins, having cancelled the written code, with its regulations,” (Col 2:14). From Col. 2:6 to 3:14 Scripture outlines the end of the ceremonial law and the continuity of the moral law.
If Bass-Riley were Presbyterian, he would also be familiar with the confessional standard that each minister of our denomination affirms. It includes, “Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a Church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings and benefits; and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament;” and, “The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard to the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.” (Book of Confessions 6.103 and 6.105). The footnotes for these sections include the following verses should Bass-Riley care to make a study: Heb 10:1, Gal 4:1-3, Col. 2:17, Heb 9, Lev 5:1-6; 6:1-7, Mark 7:18, 19, Gal 2:4, Eph 2:15, 16, Rom 13:8,9, I John 2:3,4,7, Ro 3:31, Ro 6:15.
One of the great joys of serving in a confessional church such as the PCUSA is that we agree together on these matters, having all affirmed the authoritative teachings of the Scriptures and the confessions. There are certainly other ways to understand this issue — none of those alternate understandings are Reformed or Presbyterian.
Rev. Michael Neubert Presbytery of Southeastern Illinois, PCUSA
Glad church is ‘out’ of PCUSA
Posted Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Glad to see that First Presbyterian Church of Tacoma is “out.” That was, to the best of my knowledge, the third attempt to secede. The first one was in the 1930’s and resulted in a group leaving to start a Bible Presbyterian congregation. The second attempt was in the 1980s and resulted in a group leaving to form an independent congregation.
A few churches that seceded recently had earlier attempts at withdrawal (ex. Cedar Grove, WI).
W. Aardsma Jefferson City, Mo.
The headline was the high water mark
Posted Tuesday, November 15, 2011
The headline for James Berkley’s article on the different ways groups in the church define words or theological ideas promised a thoughtful look at an important issue. What a disappointment it was to realize that the headline was the high water mark of the article. Berkley’s pettiness was surpassed only by his arrogance in referring to those with whom he disagrees. I have said on these pages many times that I am of the opinion that these are important times and important issues for our denomination. I value honest debate and conversation with colleagues of different points of view. Petty generalizations like Berkley’s, however, do nothing to further the conversation or deepen the debate. Whatever point he was trying to make in his article was lost in the dismissive tone of his writing. How disappointing.
The Reverend Dr. Robert Wm Lowry, interim pastor First Presbyterian Church of Batesville, Arkansas
Covenant Network would bind the consciences of all PCUSA ordained officers
Posted Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Many thanks to Jim Berkley for his adroit analysis of the Covenant Network’s abuse of the English language and in pointing out the Network’s duplicity in pretending to seek reconciliation with those whose consciences are bound to the Word of God, including in matters of human sexuality, while denying the right of the same to be installed in the offices of deacon, elder and minister of Word and Sacrament.
The Covenant Network has the audacity to quote, “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to His Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship” (Guidelines for Examination of Church Officers, p. 4), and then obligate officers of the Presbyterian Church (USA) to “be committed to the mutual forbearance that enables us to remain a community in diversity” and “who cannot agree to perform” “the act of officiating” “at an ordination” — as if “the act of officiating indicates neither approval nor disapproval of the congregation’s choice of leaders and council’s approval of them” (p. 12) — of one who engages in same-gender sexual intercourse with whom he or she is in a “conjugal, same-sex relationship” (p. 7). To justify this position, the Covenant Network references “a growing number of scholars (who) have thought more carefully about (the Bible’s proscription of same-gender sexual intercourse) in recent years and concluded that such views reflect cultural and time-bound assumptions, rather than the true teaching of the Bible.” (pp. 7-8) The Covenant Network dismisses the relevant Biblical texts on the subject out-of-hand and states, “In 2001, over half of the Bible faculty in our Presbyterian seminaries signed a statement expressing their belief that Scripture does not condemn all same-sex relationships. This therefore is clearly an area in which freedom of conscience in interpreting Scripture plays a critical role.” (pp. 8-9; emphasis original)
The Covenant Network would bind the consciences of all ordained officers in the Presbyterian Church (USA) to its contention, which is clearly a “doctrine and commandment of men,” that they are obligated to recognize the right of self-avowed, practicing homosexuals to serve in ordained office who have been examined and approved by a session and/or presbytery, and that they are obligated, if called upon, as “an essential of Reformed polity” (pp. 11-12) to officiate at the ordination and/or installation services of those who engage in sexual intercourse within the context of a purportedly committed, same-gender relationship.
I, for one, will not have my conscience so bound, for “to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience.” (Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch. XX §2) Moreover, “They who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty; which is, that, being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.” (WCF Ch. XX §3) And furthermore, “Though they know God’s decree that those who practice (the perversions of Rom. 1.24-31, including same-gender sexual intercourse) deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” (Rom. 1.32)
It is God who determines what is and is not sin, not the Covenant Network, not the majority of professors on PCUSA seminary faculties, and not the majority of PCUSA presbyteries. And it is God, not these, who “alone is Lord of the conscience.” Do not think that this means that we can interpret the Scriptures howsoever we like in order to conform it to our preconceived ideas about justice apart from the definitions God has given us in His Word. God will not look favorably on those, especially those in His Church, who thus twist the Scriptures to suit their own meanings. “For we know him who said, ‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay.’ And again, ‘The Lord will judge his people.’ It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” (Heb. 10.30-31) And, “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.” (Ex. 20.7)
“The time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.” (II Tim. 4.3-4) “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.” (Jas. 3.1) “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Mt. 18.6) “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; (but) fools despise wisdom and instruction.” (Prov. 1.7)
“Now therefore fear the LORD and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served” in the early 20th century when they rejected the inerrancy of Scripture and the Virgin Birth, miracles, substitutionary atonement, and bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, “and serve the LORD. And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served” in the early 20th century, or the gods of this present age who deny the sinfulness of homosexuality. “But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” (Josh. 24.14-15)
Loren Golden Overland Park, Kan.