I have been an officer of three Presbyterian churches over the past 40 years and have taught Sunday school and held other responsible positions.
I am ashamed of the behavior of a few commissioners and other ordained church leaders who have a degrading effect on our denomination in their persistence to incorporate the lowest form of sin(s) as acceptable in our worship of our Savior, Jesus Christ. I tire of justifying their effort to my children, grandchildren and friends who are not members.
My children have moved to other denominations and I no longer have the foundation to encourage them to return. Comparatively, there are other denominations that are more committed to the tenets of my Savior and his Word.
Accordingly, I am regrettably contemplating leaving the church. Comparatively, why should I remain? As a missionary to the General Assembly and for those who are dedicated to split our church? I think not!
I pray for you continuing efforts.
James B. Price First Presbyterian Church
Concerned Christian
Posted Friday, May 30, 2003
Thank you for providing the opportunity to voice my opinion. As regards the narrowly-approved Overture declaring “to affirm that the church is called to present the claims of Jesus Christ, leading persons to repent of sin, to accept Jesus as the only Savior and Lord of the whole world, and to pursue a new life as his.”, what can the commissioners be thinking? How can there be dissension on a subject that came out of the mouth of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ? Of course that is the calling of the Church. It’s not to hold bake sales, promote Amway, or ordaining gay ministers (another subject.) When are we as Christians going to quit denying the Word of the Lord, our God, and live as he commands? He did not give Moses the Ten Suggestions . . . I would love to get a response. I am not a Presbyterian, but I am a born-again Christian who is outraged at the movement to make God seem like some fluffy, Heaven-centered Pillsbury doughboy who watches the perversion on earth with a light-hearted “Hmmm-hmmm.”
Marvin Von Almen Ellijay, Georgia
Another Seminarian Who Has Never Read the Bible
Posted Friday, May 30, 2003
Your article regarding “Three Sisters call for therapists” demonstrates a part of the problem facing our denomination. According to your article, Kate Van Brocklin, described as a student with “notable credentials” at Union Theological Seminary/Presbyterian School of Christian Education, stated that “the church’s belief that homosexual behavior is abnormal was rooted in Aristotle, borrowed by Augustine and disseminated by Aquinas and a host of male theologians whose purpose was to maintain male dominance.”
If this is an accurate summary of her remarks, it is clear that she has never read either the Old or New Testaments. Apart from the theological implications, I wonder how any person who has never bothered to examine the “primary source materials” can be held out as an expert on the church’s historical beliefs.
Jim Mee Honolulu
Peace Unity and Purity
Posted Friday, May 30, 2003
Dear Editor-
Of all behaviors that might best be modeled by a GA Task Force, Peace, Unity and Purity must be near the top of the list. It leads me to wonder why the Task Force has chosen to operate in the dark.
My guess is that the answer’s somewhat Orwellian. Peace is War against Conservatives and Evangelicals (evidence: Max Lucado); Unity is Dividing the ruling elite Liberals from the overwhelming number of members who disagree with them (evidence: the repeated failed attempts to force progressive theology down the throats of believers); and Purity is Corruption (evidence: trashing the constitution, ordaining homosexuals and non-Christians). We should be grateful that the world won’t see it and the One who will see it will deal with it.
Jack O’Brien Pittsburgh, PA
G.A. action on ordination standards ‘sad’ after all the votes on issue
Posted Friday, May 30, 2003
Thanks for the report on the Committee on OrdinationStandards and its 35-29 vote to send the Des Moines overture (03-07) to the plenary session of the General Assembly. Unbelievable! and sad after the repeated votes we have conducted on this issue.
This is a very important story in this G.A. In 2001, it was only a very heavy YAD vote for the repeal of G-6.0106b that sent an overture to the full G.A. If this is the case again, then our whole church is being pushed around by those who are “coordinating” the YADs at our G.A.s
This issue should not be sent out by committees again and again. We look silly! What other body ignores its voting results like we do? The more we vote on the same issue again and again, the less respect anyone will have for the PCUSA.
Harry Slye
Is renewal possible?
Posted Friday, May 30, 2003
The election of the new moderator suggests that this will be another failed General Assembly. Despite the apparent majority of conservatives and evangelicals in the pews of the many churches of the P.C.U.S.A., the liberal wing of the church seems to claim the largest share of General Assembly commissioners.
Of course, when it comes to the politics of representation, the church has succumbed to current cultural group think (ethnic, gender and regional/geographical groups have special concerns that can only be addressed by members of those groups) and only vaguely addresses theological concerns or questions of competency (demonstrated in growing churches, growing budgets, or high-level theological reasoning).
I am sure these commissioners also wish to “reform and renew” the church. Their means for doing so, however, can only exclude those who differ with them. I suppose they feel the same way about conservative efforts to enforce the plain sense of our constitution or to uphold the orthodoxy of the confessions.
Both sides call upon the Lord to heal our church, and it appears that only divine action can heal us. The liberal wing, however, believes that God works through human actions for “justice” and believes in human salvation. They tend to be more organized and more willing to take an “ends justify the means” approach. They control the institutional levers of power and facilitate a leadership inertia that resists conservative initiatives while quickly implementing any liberal one.
The mere words of the constitution cannot bind us together. The cultural forces outside the church often incline moderates toward accommodation with the liberals, if not actual conversion. Jack Haberer is a sad reminder of that fact. The more Jack has gotten involved in national church issues and become removed from his congregational responsibilities, he has become more and more accommodating to the liberal wing.
I can recall a time when some thought Robert Bohl was a moderate, for he had taken a moderate tone while pastor of First Presbyterian Church of Fort Worth. His election as moderator either led him to openly embrace a pre-existent liberal attitude, or he shifted after contact with the powerful culturally supported ways of the liberals.
Tom Oden demonstrates the hope conservatives have of liberals coming back to orthodoxy. We believe in the power of God to work. But that also can lead to a quietism with regard to trying to take power in governing bodies. The inertia that conservatives will face is tremendous. Holding potential candidates for ordination to a high standard of theological competence and clear statements of beliefs will be tough. There will be cries of witch hunt, and hard-hearted orthodoxy, and other more personal attacks. Language will have to be carefully parsed, something which annoys less dedicated lay commissioners and pastors.
Perhaps that is the conservative movement’s greatest challenge. Many who share a conviction in the truth of conservative or traditional expressions of the Christian faith do not share a conviction that church politics are important. Presbytery meetings are anachronistic, semi-nostalgic nuisances to be endured, not embraced as arenas for action. The synods have become mostly memories, not living and functioning governing bodies for many of these same people. And the General Assembly is an embarrassment, but is thought to be too far from the local congregation to do them any real harm. Connectionalism is a concept with no content.
Renewal of the Presbyterian church may falter because of a lack of desire to do the hard work. To take the risk of seeming to be jerks, prolonging governing body meetings by asking hard questions and demanding clearly stated answers. To force the common language that liberals and conservatives share to also have shared meanings, thus revealing the true positions of each. To enforce discipline where we can, and to work toward having enough conservative commissioners to use the General Assembly’s power to enforce it where others chose not to. There must be a willingness to excommunicate, if you will, those who will not abide by the constitution of the church and to risk the bad publicity that a secular, liberal-leaning press will no doubt heap upon us.
I foresee another useless Assembly, if not a downright harmful one. How much longer can we hold on? When will the life of the denomination be important enough to rouse many from lethargy? A more engaged conservative wing of the church will no doubt lead to even more fierce and ugly battles, which will not help the church to grow or flourish in the short term.
If a more engaged conservative wing cannot attract its less-engaged fellow believers or convince a few moderates of the importance of the issues facing the church, then the schism in belief might have to become a schism in fact.
Rev. Scott Mackey Fort Worth, Texas
Coming out of the closet because of Kirkpatrick
Posted Thursday, May 29, 2003
I have just read the news article “Kirkpatrick: After 20 years together, 20 percent have left the denomination.” It is time for me to come out of the closet. Yes, I am among the 20 percent who have left the denomination. And I must confess it has been a liberating, exhilarating, refreshing and, yes, spiritually renewing experience.
I certainly do not belong in a denomination that refused to elect the Rev. Harold Kurtz as moderator of the General Assembly. And I suspect that many of you who “…contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints ” (Jude 3), no longer belong there either.
A window was left open for my departure, but that window has long since been closed and barred. I wonder if there is any way for another escape window to be opened? There is a wonderful world outside the walls of the PCUSA.
Robert C. Oates Brookhaven, Miss.
About Rob Crutchfield’s letter
Posted Thursday, May 29, 2003
Again, with Rob Crutchfield’s missive, we have some logical errors. The first is to oppose “letter” and “Spirit” as if the Spirit were indifferent to obedience; the second is to equate “fulfill and complete the Law” with “set the Law aside.”
No, Jesus “did not come to give us Torah Lite” – he came to call us to a *higher* standard of behavior, one without the loopholes offered by the Law. Remember, among Christ’s sharpest criticisms of the Pharisees were a) the fact that they added laws to the Law, and b) that they avoided obeying the intent of the Law by twisting its words. That sounds rather more like the Covenant Network and the Witherspoon Society than any of their detractors.
The third error is to trumpet “the all-forgiving love of God” without realizing that *forgiveness* requires *repentance*. “All-forgiving” does not mean “all-excusing,” which seems to be how Mr. Crutchfield wants us to understand it. Yes, God will forgive anyone who repents and seeks to abandon their sin; but he will forgive no one who does not repent but defends their sin.
And fourth, “Jesus did not come to make everybody act right” is simply a wrongheaded statement. Yes, he did; he came to free us from sin and death by his death and resurrection and to give us his Spirit so that we might live his life and *thereby* “act right.” Right action, holy action, has always been a part of the picture (remember, he is the one who said, “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” – sounds like “acting right” to me); it’s only the reasons and motivations that have changed. Our God is utterly holy, and a consuming fire, and none of our rationalizations will change the demands of his holiness.
Rev. Rob Harrison Grand Lake, Colo.
At times, I’m ashamed to be called a Presbyterian
Posted Thursday, May 29, 2003
As a lifelong Presbyterian, I am at times ashamed to be called a Presbyterian. The denomination in which I grew up in has changed to the extent that it is almost entirely different from the church I loved and met Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord.
It distresses me to see our church declining and the leaders look at this effect, but do not look at the causes. I feel one of the reasons God has taken His blessings off our denomination is that we no longer honor Him or His Word. We want to be politically correct and not offend anyone, that we have become lukewarm and Christ said he’d spew us out of his mouth.
May we repent of sins and turn again to our only God and His Word. May we be in the world but not of the world.
Gordon McKinney
Enforcing rule G-6.0106b
Posted Thursday, May 29, 2003
Thank you for your coverage of the 215th G.A. I just read your story entitled “Panel votes to repeal rule on enforcing constitution.” I would like to inform you that while the last sentence of your article states that “Since his trial, Van Kuiken has announced that he will continue those practices,” he has already done so.
Please see the article from the Cincinnati Enquirer, “Rebuke doesn’t stop Pastor,” Wednesday, May 21, 2003, by Dan Klepal. As this article states, Van Kuiken performed another marriage of a lesbian couple since receiving the rebuke, and informed the Presbytery of Cincinnati on May 20, 2003, that he had done so.
Please continue your important coverage of the 215th G.A.
Dan Owens Cincinnati, Ohio
Presbyterian sexuality?
Posted Thursday, May 29, 2003
In response to Mr. Rob Crutchfield, I believe that he has his thoughts in reverse. From what I have read, it appears that a very few people who demand to make their sexuality the only issue for Presbyterian service are making a concerted effort to change the Constitution strictly for their own benefit. Clearly, the vast majority of Presbyterians do not think this is right, proper or Biblical.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that if the alternative sexuality folks will stop talking about the issue, then we can focus on the more important matters that Presbyterians need to address, such as missions, evangelism and the worship of our Creator, the Trinitarian God.
John Ramsey Medina, Ohio
Where the Covenant Network’s going
Posted Thursday, May 29, 2003
So, Robert Bohl doesn’t believe we should pay much attention to where we’ve come from. No wonder the Covenant Network feels free to play fast and loose with not only our historical confessions, but with the Word of God itself.
I suppose these are just irritating reminders of our past … the suspect record of the history of God and God’s people. How foolish for any of us to base our faith, our life, our hope, on what God has done in the past.
What really matters is where we are going, so Bohl would have us believe. But if one has no real appreciation of where one has come from, then it is likely one will be unable to truly understand where one is at the present, and thus make it all but impossible to chart a course into a future with any real purpose.
Yet, my sense is, if the Covenant Network chooses to turn a blind eye to Salvation History, there certainly will be no doubt about the ultimate destination of its adherents. There is a name for those who don’t have any idea of where they have come from, and hence have no real idea of where they are now and no hope of getting where they want to be. The lost.
Jim Wilken Pastor
My comments on the World Council of Churches
Posted Thursday, May 29, 2003
Thank you for your fine coverage of the debate on the World Council of Churches in the General Assembly’s Catholicity Committee. Nowhere else in the denominational press would readers find out about the serious financial and non-financial problems at the WCC.
I must correct you on one point, however. In the open hearing before the committee, I did not say, “It is inappropriate to make contributions to the World Council of Churches in leadership and funding,” as The Layman Online reported. I did say that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) makes disproportionate contributions to the WCC in both leadership and funding. And I said that those contributions obligated the PCUSA to take responsibility for problems at the WCC, and to take action to remedy those problems.
I am in favor of reforming the WCC, not withdrawing from it. Sadly, the official review of the WCC that came to this Assembly acknowledged only one problem at the council: a shortage of funds. And its solution is to keep sending large sums of money to Geneva and hope that other churches imitate our extravagance.
I told the Assembly Catholicity Committee that our denomination needs to have an agenda for reforming the WCC. And we need to use all our leverage to promote the necessary reforms. The PCUSA shouldn’t be guaranteeing continued high levels of funding for the WCC, unless and until we see evidence of a major change in direction at the council. We should consider redirecting some of the money that we now give the WCC to other international Christian organizations that are equally ecumenical – and much more effective and much less divisive.
Unfortunately, the General Assembly Committee on Ecumenical Relations (GACER) review of the WCC contains no suggested reforms. It seems satisfied with the status quo in Geneva.
I think the Committee on Ecumenical Relations failed in its responsibility to answer both the financial and non-financial questions that have been raised about the WCC. That’s why I urged the General Assembly commissioners to refer the review back to GACER, with a firm instruction to answer the questions this time.
Alan Wisdom
Haberer called to return to standards of Reformed tradition
Posted Wednesday, May 28, 2003
I’m sorry, but Jack Haberer continues to distance himself and Presbyterians For Renewal (serving as president) from many evangelical, Reformed Presbyterians by his remarks about inclusivity in the Presbyterian Church (USA), evidenced by his conversations with Barbara Wheeler (Covenant Network) recently at the G.A. in Denver.
I also listened carefully to Jack when he came to the Presbytery of Missouri River Valley last fall here in Omaha.
Jack may have good intentions, but his ideas about inclusivity are not working. In my opinion, he needs to be more concerned about historic, Biblical standards and faith that have served Presbyterians for over 200 years. The continued tensions we are experiencing are about historic Christian teachings from the apostles, prophets and Jesus Christ Himself.
Wheeler is not in the mainstream orthodox and Christian worldview concerning her understanding of the ordination issue regarding sexually active homosexuals and lesbians. Like the German theologian,Friedrich Schleiermacher, both Jack and Barbara are trying to bring the Christian faith into congruence with contemporary culture.
It won’t work, it never has. Christianity has always been about the obedience of faith and how Christian faith and teaching influences culture. Not the other way around, as suggested by both Haberer and Wheeler. Evangelical, Reformed and catholic Presbyterians, along with all other Christians, will not stand for compromise and a lack of focus upon the truth regarding these matters. It is at the heart of why we lost 41,000 Presbyterians during 2002, as reported by the stated clerk. We cannot embrace ideas and ideologies that are not Christian truth.
I’m sorry, Jack, but you’re losing touch with many faithful Presbyterian pastors and lay persons who are still contending for the faith, living by current Presbyterian constitutional standards, exalting Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, living under the authority of Holy Scripture, and still affirming the Biblical standards for holy living.
Jack, I’m sorry to see you go down this path. If you would read Presbyterian history, you would know that it leads to a dead end.
Jack, quit compromising the faith and pretending that you speak for evangelical, Reformed and catholic Presbyterians who know better.
Rev. Dr. Kevin McDonald Covenant Presbyterian Church
Chris Yim is telling the truth
Posted Wednesday, May 28, 2003
Chris Yim and I went to seminary together. We were both under the care of Blue Ridge Presbytery at the same time. We both served congregations in Coastal Carolina Presbytery.
Chris is brilliant; a triple major at Hampton-Sidney College (one of his majors being Greek), he wracked up more Honors marks at Union Theological Seminary in Virginia in exegetical courses for one semester than I did in my entire seminary career.
Chris is a man of integrity. He is fiercely pro-life. Our GA PJC is blessed to have him there; when I discovered that he was serving in this capacity, I breathed a sigh of thanks to God that He is obviously working His purpose out.
If Chris says he signed Diane Gibson’s commissioner’s resolution without actually reading it, it is no idle alibi. It is the truth. One might question his lapse of judgment in that hurried moment at the GA clerk’s table, but to suggest that he would be involved in some type of conspiracy is, to this Confessing Church pastor who knows him, quite ridiculous.
C. Powell Sykes Pastor