Posted Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Thank you, Mr. McIntosh, for your most wise, adept and correct analysis. I would encourage all of us to consider having our sessions submit an overture to restore our AI’s, thus undoing the action of GA 2008. Wouldn’t it be something if GA 2010 was inundated with them? Rev. Steven L. Seng First Presbyterian Church, Wellsburg, W.Va.
Presbyteries are putting into action the ‘Louisville Papers’
Posted Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Upon reading the December 18th rant of attorney Craig Hoster (“No one is helped”) with its hyperbolic – indeed, apoplectic – attacks on The Layman for “sloppy journalism” and “outright falsifications,” I am reminded of nothing so much as of Adolf Hitler’s justification for the 1938 annexation of Austria. Indeed, the Fuherer was loudly cheered by his minions, even as Mr. Hoster will be by the PCUSA institutionalists, for placing the blame on Austrians. Hitler’s pre-Anschluss demands of Schuschnigg were echoed by Hoster’s settlement demands to the Kirk. Like Schuschnigg, the Kirk capitulated to the initial demands, only to find itself the victim of a dictator’s ultimatum. Hitler’s post-Anschluss blaming of Austrians for his own over-arching evil is echoed in Hoster’s blaming The Layman. Hoster’s claim to moral superiority is indistinguishable from Hitler’s claim that only Germany could adequately “protect” Germans living in Austria. Hoster’s brutal tactics were the courtroom equivalent of Hitler’s armies marching across the Austrian border.
Presbyteries throughout the denomination are putting into action the despicable plot uncovered by The Layman in the “Louisville Papers.” Frequently, churches have seen presbyteries persecute the pastor, with administrative commissions installing a Seyss-Inquart in literally the middle of the night to preach in from hollow pulpits to vastly diminished congregations. (Hollywood First Presbyterian being a prime example of this.) In this instance, however, the Kirk’s parishioners preferred to pay a ransom of nearly two million dollars to be rid of the PCUSA.
If only Hitler had been so “generous” to Austria.
Warren McGeorge
We need godly Presbyterian fathers
Posted Tuesday, December 30, 2008
The decision to call a woman to lead the Presbyterian Lay Committee helps to explain why evangelical Presbyterians will not be successful in offering a Reformed alternative to the mess that is the PCUSA. Does not the Lay Committee understand how the fight in the denomination today over the ordination of those who claim sodomy is commendable behavior is related to the twisting of Scripture since the mid-20th century to sanction the ordination of women? Not only did that earlier decision go against Scripture, tradition and nature, but the gnosticism that claims that gender is unrelated to who stands in the pulpit is the same Gnosticism that today claims that gender is irrelevant to who stands before that pulpit as bride and groom.
Even if you don’t believe that both novelties spring from the same source, the ordination of women as ministers of the Word has been a disaster for the PCUSA. Not only must one search in vain for women pastors who have gathered and grown viable Presbyterian congregations, but also the admission of more and more women (many at mid-life) to an office that demands leaders with testoterone has resulted in dramatically fewer of our best young men from pursing the ministry, at least in the PCUSA. And we wonder why today the PCUSA is theologically, morally and demographically bankrupt.
Unfortunately, the calling of a lady preacher, no matter how gifted, to run the Lay Committee is not the need of the hour. We need godly Presbyterian fathers in the image of John Calvin, John Knox, and John Witherspoon. As C.S. Lewis might say, men with chests. Robert W. Patterson Leesburg, Virginia
Can a Christian really deny the faith of another Christian?
Posted Tuesday, December 30, 2008
The article you referenced by Albert Mohler about the virgin birth was most interesting – plus his thoughts about liberals.
He asks the question “Can a Christian deny the virgin birth?”
Then Mohler provides the answer for all us liberals in claiming we do deny the virgin birth and thus aren’t real Christians.
I will pose a better question. Can a Christian really deny the faith of another Christian?
I expect a Christian can deny the faith of another, but then one has to ask on what authority does a human take such action. Isn’t denying the faith of one that chooses to follow Christ somewhat a heresy in the same manner as one that might not believe in the virgin birth?
The Bible does tell the true story. It makes it clear that God loved the world and God gave us Jesus that we will have everlasting life. And I accept that as many liberals do. Thank goodness I don’t have to rely on Albert Mohler or others to tell me if I have it right. God provides that promise through Jesus Christ!
Here’s the bottom line. For some reason Jesus was quite remarkable and changed the lives of many throughout the centuries. He has also changed mine. This is something real inside of me and as such I know the reality of God our Creator as well. The Bible also helps me in knowing the background of how God touched humanity and brought Jesus to us.
Well, was Mary a virgin? Well, in a sense Mary was, despite one’s point of view. Mary had a true encounter with God that I don’t think others had in those days. She brought a very special person into the world, our Savior, Jesus Christ. Jesus was anointed by God and the fact is no human could have the power to make Jesus what he was. God did. So Mary experienced something that no other human woman did before her or after her. That is the wonderful miracle I find in the account of Jesus’ birth, as do many Christians in the world whether they be liberal, conservative or in the middle. It is such wonderful news!
Why make such a fuss over this is my question? Earl C. Apel, deacon Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church, Cincinnati, Ohio
To prove his words, Pollock needs to forgive ransoms exacted from congregations
Posted Friday, December 19, 2008
“We have not emphasized fully that Christ’s church is not the building where one worships. Nor is the church the congregation of one’s membership. Rather, we are one church united by the shared covenant through Christ and ultimately, through ecumenism, connected with the whole church, catholic,” Kears Pollock, moderator, Pittsburgh Presbytery as quoted by The Christian Post on 12/18/08.
Just enough archaic syntax to make it sound like a prayer being uttered, wouldn’t you say? Lukewarm spittle I would say.
I do not believe Pollock. I don’t think he even believes what he said. I think he is saying what is expedient, job-protecting and probably ordered of him from Kentucky the way you and I would call up Domino’s. I think he and Louisville are afraid that if he doesn’t do something, that more churches will leave the Pittsburgh Presbytery.
Pollock could prove to me that his and the denomination’s interest is truly not material by forgiving the ransoms they have exacted from their brethren in the Pittsburgh Presbytery that now amounts to about a million dollars worth of Presbyterian ecumenism. Or he can prove to me that he’s a deceiver, covering up the Louisville Papers by accusing congregations of fomenting the legal issues –not defending against them, taking the money while disparaging materialism.
Rhetoric 101, Mr. Moderator, you’re going to have to do better than that. Can you? Jack O’Brien
Congratulations, Carmen Fowler
Posted Friday, December 19, 2008
Congratulations to Rev. Carmen Fowler on her election to be president of the Presbyterian Lay Committee and executive editor of its publications, The Layman and The Layman Online. Loren Golden Overland Park, Kan.
Kirk pastors renounced the jurisdiction of PCUSA, not their ordination vows
Posted Friday, December 19, 2008
In his recent letter (posted December 18, 2008) taking you to task for allegedly reporting misinformation, Craig Hoster, attorney for Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery, made the following statement:
“The presbytery voluntarily honored (with brief emails between the Kirk’s attorney and me) the Kirk’s request that EOP’s Administrative Commission not intervene in the life of the congregation or in its relationship with its pastors after the Kirk voted to disaffiliate with PCUSA and the pastors renounced their ordination vows.”
This left me a little confused. Unless I have misunderstood something in the departure of the Kirk and its pastors from the PCUSA, it seems to me that the pastors did NOT renounce their ordination vows. Rather, as with many others who have left the ministry of the PCUSA to continue to fulfill their calling, they renounced the jurisdiction of the PCUSA. Had they renounced their ordination vows, they would have had to cease exercise of the office of pastor until such time as they gained an ordination from another body. But these pastors were not abandoning their office – merely the accountability structure (jurisdiction) of the PCUSA. Renouncing one’s ordination – declaring that you will never again exercise the office – is a far different issue and process than merely leaving behind a denomination to continue in faithfulness to God’s calling elsewhere. This does not make one “unordained” any more than becoming an apostate and renouncing the church and Christ makes one “unbaptized.” Perhaps Elder Hoster, Esq., is not familiar with the concept that ordination is for life (just as is baptism), for “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29).
It’s the only conclusion I can draw from someone so vitally concerned with accuracy of information published in The Layman. Rev. Bill Pawson Westminster Community Church, Canton, Ohio
No one is helped by the reporting of misinformation
Posted Thursday, December 18, 2008
As attorney for Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery, I feel an obligation to respond to your recent article regarding Kirk of the Hills (“Kirk pays $1.75 million to buy its own property“, Dec. 16).
Since I last wrote to you, in a letter you published on Nov. 8, 2006, you have continued to repeat the falsehoods I addressed in that letter, together with others you have dreamed up since then, as if somehow the repetition of them makes them true. This practice of The Layman during this tragic and lengthy lawsuit, along with the innuendo that has been paired with such reporting, has not been helpful or fair to either Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery or to the people of the Kirk. Conversely, it unfortunately may have frustrated the efforts of the members of both groups in their struggle to understand their situation and to come to a resolution. Even when resolution was finally achieved this week, your Dec. 16 article repeats falsehoods and recites new ones with an all-too-apparent motive of feeding the tensions and distrust.
I will reiterate what I attempted to explain in my previous letter to you: There was no temporary restraining order in this case, nor was one ever sought, by either Kirk of the Hills or by Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery. The presbytery voluntarily honored (with brief emails between the Kirk’s attorney and me) the Kirk’s request that EOP’s Administrative Commission not intervene in the life of the congregation or in its relationship with its pastors after the Kirk voted to disaffiliate with PCUSA and the pastors renounced their ordination vows. This error – perpetuated since you reported it in 2006 – has tragically mischaracterized the presbytery’s posture throughout this litigation.
You also reported – again – that the judge’s ruling was based solely upon hierarchical deference. This is simply incorrect. EOP and PCUSA won the case based upon both legal theories commonly used in U.S. courts today: hierarchical deference and neutral principles. Here is a direct quote from the Order Adjudicating Summary Judgment Motions entered by the Court on Nov. 4: 2. Defendant EOP has moved for summary judgment on the claims in Plaintiff’s petition against it and on EOP’s claims for declaratory judgment and enforcement of the EOP Administrative Commission report.
3. Defendant PCUSA has moved for summary judgment on the claims in Plaintiff’s petition against it.
4. Presbytery of Cimarron v. Westminster Presbyterian Church of Enid, 1973 OK 114, 515 P.2d 211, has been neither modified nor overruled, and has not been repudiated in any way by the appellate decisions of the Supreme Court or any other appellate court in this state.
5. Cimarron holds that “… when a local church voluntarily becomes an integral part of a national hierarchical church, it is thereafter bound by the latter’s constitution and its judicatories’ decisions, the holding of its property is likewise controlled by such provisions of said constitution and the authorized mandates of said judicatories…”
6. The action taken by the local church and corporation here do not obviate the Cimarron result.
7. Defendant EOP is entitled to the relief described in Paragraph 2 under the hierarchical deference analysis of Cimarron and also under the neutral factors analysis.
8. Defendant PCUSA is entitled to the relief described in Paragraph 3 under the hierarchical deference analysis of Cimarron and also under the neutral factors analysis. (Emphasis added.) Your error in reporting the judge’s decision both misrepresents the order itself and mischaracterizes the effect it had on the uphill battle that the Kirk faced, had the congregation chosen to continue its efforts within the legal system.
Unfortunately, you apparently never investigated the issue of the April 2006 affidavits filed by EOP. If you had, you would have learned that these affidavits – and the reasons for them – were no secret kept from the Kirk. EOP’s reasons, which you off-handedly mentioned, had been discussed at EOP trustee meetings for months. The EOP board of trustees included a Kirk member during the relevant time period, and he was (or should have been) aware of the whole situation. EOP’s experience during these last two-and-a- half years has been that the Kirk used the recording of the affidavit as a convenient excuse to file the lawsuit; it was of no consequence during the litigation.
Prior to its disaffiliation, the Kirk did much more than “touch up” its charter documents without notification to the presbytery. It changed its corporate name and completely amended and restated its articles of incorporation, corporate bylaws and congregational bylaws including removal of all of the language in those documents which spoke of the congregation’s and corporation’s irreversible relationship with PCUSA. Conversely, it didn’t touch its deed at all, which you also got wrong.
And perhaps most unfortunate: The $1.75 million settlement is hardly a “windfall” for the EOP. This settlement has resulted in the presbytery’s loss of one of its largest and strongest congregations. It has cost the PCUSA its presence in an important segment of our city, established by the presbytery 47 years ago. This loss cannot be recouped anytime in the foreseeable future with the receipt of $1.75 million. And further, EOP has incurred several hundred thousand dollars in legal fees which must be paid out of these proceeds. EOP, as a “winner” of the lawsuit, was clearly in a position to demand a “windfall” price for the church property if it were as greedy as your report implies. Tragically, EOP’s unwavering efforts both to be faithful in its obligations to the PCUSA Constitution and to minister to its brothers and sisters at the Kirk went largely unacknowledged during this whole process. Even now, after the closing of this grace-filled settlement, you slam the EOP with a gross mischaracterization of the settlement’s effect on the presbytery and the presbytery’s motives behind it.
I will repeat what I said in my letter of Nov. 8, 2006: In this difficult situation, no one is helped by the reporting of misinformation. And I will say further: Your sloppy journalism and outright fabrications during this difficult time for EOP and the Kirk, and indeed for the entire Body of Christ, hamper the efforts of Presbyterians of all varieties to deal with these difficult issues the Church faces today.
�
Craig Hoster Attorney for Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery and elder, Presbyterian Church (USA)
Fowler is an excellent choice for the future of The Layman
Posted Thursday, December 18, 2008
Carmen Fowler is an excellent choice for the future of The Layman. I look forward to seeing her work progress in this new venue. God bless you all! Bill Crawford, pastor First Presbyterian Church of Thibodaux, Thibodaux, La.
Choice of Fowler correlates well with Lay Committee objectives
Posted Thursday, December 18, 2008
I am delighted to learn that The Layman has selected Rev. Carmen Fowler to be its new president and executive director.
Even though the four objectives of The Layman make clear the cruciality of its understanding of its call to minister to the “Church Universal” and “other denominations,” the fact that the PCUSA is the only denomination mentioned in the four objectives, and that it is mentioned five times, correlates well with the selection of a person like Carmen, who has a strong background both in serving PCUSA congregations and in leading PCUSA renewal groups.
Since Carmen is currently co-moderator (along with Gerritt Dawson who has transferred to the EPC) of New Wineskins, not to mention that organization in connection with her selection may be to ignore the elephant in the room. My own view of the New Wineskins is that I resonate much more with their goal of helping conservative and evangelical congregations remain faithful in the PCUSA than with their other goal of supporting and networking with congregations who may wish to leave.
But whether Carmen stays in the PCUSA – my strong hope – or eventually goes to the EPC – I hope not – in either case as a person with service in PCUSA congregations and a degree from Princeton Seminary, as well as experience as a clergywoman, the symbolism of her selection seems much more congruent with The Layman’s four objectives than with its previous selection of someone who might have been personally highly qualified but who had a largely PCA background.
[Note to PCUSA governing bodies. I think Carmen was less-than-well-treated by her former presbytery in Florida when she was on the Coalition staff; and I think the presbytery whose bounds I grew up in, Western North Carolina, dealt less-than-fairly with Parker Williamson when he was a member of that presbytery and executive director of the Lay Committee. Since I hope Carmen remains in the PCUSA, I hope PCUSA governing bodies will have the broad vision, commitment to theological inclusivity (see G-4.0403) and Christian charity to treat her fairly and honorably.]I applaud The Layman for this choice. Winfield Casey Jones Pearland, Texas
Clerks can’t be held responsible for what happened before their time in office
Posted Thursday, December 18, 2008
While I agree with much of what you say in this commentary, I want to correct a mistake. Neither Gradye Parsons nor Cliff Kirkpatrick can be held responsible for anything the stated clerk’s office did during the Zimbabwean revolution, the Sandinista revolution or rule in Nicaragua or state police infiltration of Eastern European or Russian churches. All those things happened before Cliff became clerk or Gradye started to work in the clerk’s office. Now for things after Cliff became stated clerk or Gradye started to work in the OGA, they are another matter. Robert Campbell, pastor Tully Memorial Presbyterian Church, Sharon Hill, Pa.
Editor’s note:
During his term as stated clerk, Clifton Kirkpatrick made several visits to Cuba, posing before cameras with Fidel Castro, much to the sorrow of Castro’s political prisoners who had hoped that fellow Christians would come to their defense.
During his tenure as stated clerk, Kirkpatrick traveled to Zimbabwe for a meeting of the World Council of Churches in which he and other WCC leaders greeted Robert Mugabe and received Mugabe’s public accolades for the role their denominations played in supporting his revolution. Kirkpatrick had ample access to the platform during that meeting, but he remained silent regarding Mugabe’s atrocities.
During his tenure as stated clerk and for several years prior to his election to that office, Kirkpatrick served on the governing board of the World Council of Churches, and he defended his colleagues’ complicity with Soviet infiltration of Eastern European churches.
During his leadership as director of the Division of International Mission, the post that he vacated to assume the stated clerk’s position, Kirkpatrick employed and defended missionary personnel in Nicaragua who campaigned for the Sandinistas, and he facilitated his division’s “mission interpretation” tours that supported the Ortega regime.
Also while serving as director of the Division of International Mission, Kirkpatrick pursued policies of appeasement toward North Korea’s Kim Il-sung’s dictatorship. His senior staff member, Syngman Rhee, with Kirkpatrick’s public support, repeatedly sought to legitimize Kim Il-sung’s faux churches and opposed overtures to the General Assembly that sought to criticize that regime’s persecution of Christians.
In his commentary, Williamson noted that Gradye Parsons was a member of Kirkpatrick’s senior staff for nearly ten years, encompassing some, but not all of the events cited above. This was the basis for Williamson’s conclusion, “In such a context, he [Parsons] could not have missed the denomination’s salvation by politics dictum.”
Fowler is ‘just what we need’
Posted Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Great choice in Carmen. She is a superb leader. Just what we need. James Quillin
May Fowler’s tenure be marked with joy
Posted Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Great news about Carmen Fowler. May the Lord bless and keep her in the difficult role to which He has called her. I pray that her tenure would be marked by both joy and in the words of Eugene Peterson in The Message, “… the unhurried rhythms of grace.” Rev. Dave Moody Sparta, Ill.
PLC’s choice of Fowler is truly inspired
Posted Wednesday, December 17, 2008
While I still regret the departure of Charles Burge, I think the choice of Rev. Carmen Fowler to be the next executive director of the Presbyterian Lay Committee is truly inspired. Congratulations to Rev. Fowler and to the Lay Committee. Rev. John B. Erthein Westminster Presbyterian Church, Erie, Pa.
Fincke should be ashamed of himself
Posted Wednesday, December 17, 2008
I do not know who this Mr. Andrew Fincke is (letter to the editor, posted December 16, 2008) but he should be ashamed of himself in comparing having a woman leader to a practicing homosexual. The extreme left is bad news but the extreme right, which this person seems to represent, is just as bad!! Rev. Eriberto (Eddie) Soto, Associate For Latin American Ministries Charleston-Atlantic Presbytery, Charleston, S.C.