Posted Wednesday, March 31, 2004
I read The Presbyterian Outlook report on the Baltimore case on Presbyweb tonight and could never figure out exactly what took place. Then I clicked on The Layman Online’s account. Thankfully, The Layman Online reported it in language I could understand.
The Layman Online noted that all members of the “investigative committee” which looked into the controversy at Baltimore were contributors to “That All May Freely Serve,” that the Baltimore presbytery executive signed articles of incorporation for TAMFS, and that TAMFS offices are located within the presbytery offices.
“Stacked Deck” might have explained the situation even more clearly.
Elsewhere on Presbyweb tonight, I see that Susan Andrews has stacked the deck for her GLBT agenda at the General Assembly in Richmond.
David Howard Jacksonville, Fla.
Maybe Nicodemus and Joseph were in The Passion
Posted Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Dr. Metherell – Great article (about The Passion of the Christ)!
Thanks very much for writing it. One small comment – You say, “We do not see anything of Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea …” I think we do. Gibson shows two members of the Sanhedrin objecting to irregularities in the trial and being shoved out of the courtyard. They weren’t identified, but I assumed that they were Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea. It would fit – as people who wanted to protect Jesus but didn’t want to risk being identified with them, the safest thing to do would be to object to the (obviously illegal) procedures of the trial.
Of course, that’s just my supposition, but it would be consistent. In fact, the IMDB page for the movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335345/fullcredits) lists actors playing both Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, so I’ll bet that Gibson intended the identification to be clear – even though Caiaphas doesn’t actually say, “Will you people get Nicodemus out of here!”
Just a thought …
Andrew Solovay
Run, Bob, Run! Run, Rus, Run!’
Posted Wednesday, March 31, 2004
It took far less time than I thought for the nay-sayers to begin calling for one of the conservative/evangelical candidates for stated clerk to drop out. We all knew that these letters would come but really, let us examine their premise.
Having two candidates ensures Mr. Kirkpatrick a win? Why? By what logic is that the case? The fact is that the winner must garner 51 percent of the vote. In the past where there have been more than two candidates, the third place finisher has withdrawn and the run-off was between the top two. That is custom, not church law.
a. Who is to say that Mr. Kirkpatrick’s increasingly inept leadership won’t move him to third?
b. What if the third place candidate doesn’t drop out? That would cause a stalemate which would at the very least suspend the continued ineptitude and ideology driven actions of our current leadership.
I say, “Run, Bob, Run! Run, Rus, Run!” Unless and until we affect a change in the halls of Louisville our decline will continue and accelerate to the point that we are losing a member every 10 minutes instead of every 13 as is now the case.
Both Bob Davis and L. Rus Howard are committed to the Lordship of Christ and the essential tenets of our Reformed faith. They will not pander to the cultural accommodation of the NCC and WCC. Nor will they facilitate the strident but minority voice which proclaims itself progressive while systematically working to deconstruct the Presbyterian Church USA.
Cliff must be defeated. Put your energies to telling about his failures and quit worrying about the two guys willing to lay it on the line for you and me.
Rev. James C. Yearsley Pittsburgh, Pa.
Who will fire Ivory?
Posted Wednesday, March 31, 2004
In the wake of Elenora Giddings Ivory’s deceptive [speech in front of the U.S. Capitol] and the public outrage that has ensued, both from within and without the Presbyterian Church, who will fire her and send her packing to the Episcopal Church?!
Douglas Wilkie Los Angeles
Was writer expressing superiority and exclusion?
Posted Wednesday, March 31, 2004
I have been reading and seeking to comprehend writings on doctrine, religious politics and moral/ethical matters for more years than I care to remember.
I am having a bit of difficulty in determining the point of the letters sent in by the Rev. Sale, as they seem little more than the standard liberal “pap.”
What is more clear however is that he is doubtlessly right whatever the topic or circumstance.
Gee, now even I feel “polarized” by his “too clever by half” expressions of superiority and exclusion. Certainly he did not intend that.
That would be “vindictive.”
Davis R. Dalby, elder
Presbyterian Layman’ does appear online
Posted Monday, March 29, 2004
Rev. M. Anderson Sale says you should drop Presbyterian from your name. You note “We’re not sure which publications Rev. Sale is reading, but the word ‘Presbyterian’ doesn’t appear in the name of either The Layman or The Layman Online.”
I suggest you look at the top of the browser window (I use Internet Explorer) when viewing your site. It does say “Presbyterian Layman.”
And on your home page near the bottom you note “Foundations of the Faith The Lord’s Prayer studies from The Presbyterian Layman are online” and “Theology that Matters, a regular feature of The Presbyterian Layman, is now online.”
So I might ask which publications (or web sites) are your reading?
Earl Apel, member Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church, Cincinnati, Ohio
The person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ is the entire basis for our faith
Posted Monday, March 29, 2004
The information contained in Presbyterians Today never ceases to amaze me. A couple of months ago we were treated to a summary of the “solid theology” in the television show Joan of Arcadia, which made my wife and I convulse with laughter at such an absurd claim. This month’s offering contains an article about evangelicals by John Filiatreau. Filiatreau writes as though the concepts of an inerrant Bible, personal responsibility for evangelism, and a commitment to a life of holiness are a brand new phenomenon rather than the norms of the Church for over a thousand years.
However, it is his surprise observation that “a conviction that Christ’s death on the cross is the key to forgiveness of sin and eternal salvation” that concerns me the most. Does Filiatreau think that only “evangelicals” believe this? Shouldn’t ALL Christians believe this? Does Filiatreau himself not share this conviction? Why does he write as though he has heard it for the very first time? I can’t believe I actually have to state this among professing Christians, but the person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ is the entire basis for our faith. So much so that the apostle Paul says that if Christ be not raised, then our faith is in vain (1 Corinthians 15). Indeed, the apostle just might be on to something.
Another ridiculous statement from the article quoted by Filiatreau is, “In the words of Princeton historian Robert Wuthnow: Mainline Protestants say, ‘That’s not really my role, to get out there. I can live as a good Christian; hopefully they’ll see something in my lifestyle; or perhaps, if they’re really in need, they’ll come to me. But I’m not going to go out of my way. That would be an intrusion on their rights. That would be a lack of respect. So all I can do is be an example, and leave it at that.'” Why do professing Presbyterians act as though they have never heard of sharing the gospel before? Looking at the Scriptures, we find that Jesus sent out the 12, then later sent out the 70. They were specifically sent out to stomp all over the rights of folks by sharing the good news of the Kingdom. They also committed such acts of disrespect as healing sicknesses and driving out demons. Paul went out of his way not once, but three times, across most of the known world to provide people with much more than an just an example of a lifestyle choice. He went where the Holy Spirit led him to preach the gospel as the apostle to the Gentiles, and I count myself as one Gentile who is now a child of Abraham by faith, for which I will be forever grateful.
God forbid that I should ever consider it a lack of respect to not go out of my way to share the gospel, and therefore deny someone the knowledge that would save his/her eternal soul.
Paul C. von Wedel Fountain Inn, S.C.
Presbyterian’ does appear throughout Web site
Posted Monday, March 29, 2004
I couldn’t help but notice your “Editors’ Note” in response to a March 26 letter written by the Rev. M. Anderson Sale. In that letter, the Rev. Sale suggested that you drop the word “Presbyterian” from the names of your publications. Your note pointed out that the word “Presbyterian” does not appear in the name of either “The Layman” or “The Layman Online.”
I grant you that “Presbyterian” does not appear in those two names, but it does appear in headings throughout your web site.
The name “The Presbyterian Layman” also appears on your archive pages. Even the link at the bottom of that page is “The Presbyterian Layman.” The link is set off in italics, suggesting a proper title.
Perhaps your “Editors’ Note” was unfair, even rude, to the Rev. Sale and to other readers who visit your web site and have come to know you as “The Presbyterian Layman.”
See comment on letter above. And, indeed, many readers continue to refer to “The Presbyterian Layman.“ The editors David J. Hunley
Washington Office is a cancer on the fabric of the PCUSA
Posted Monday, March 29, 2004
My wife and I are appalled to learn that Elenora Giddings Ivory and her Washington Office are backing this rally [The March for Women’s Lives].
As a member of the National ProLife Religious Council, I am aware of the Silent No More campaign started by Janet Morana of Priests for Life and Georgette Forney of National Organization of Episcopalians for Life, and I believe Terry Schlossberg of Presbyterians ProLife is also promoting the Silent No More Campaign.
What is it going to take to convince Ms. Ivory that what she and her staff are doing is supporting the murder of unborn children, a practice that not only kills the babies but also hurts women? In fact, it hurts women very, very badly. That is the theme that Ms. Morana and Ms. Forney are stressing: “Abortion hurts women” and “Women deserve better” and “I regret my abortion” are the signs they plan to hold.
Does Ms. Ivory and her staff realize how fundamentally anti-women the promotion of abortion rights really is? And further, does she realize how basically anti-black support of abortion rights also is? It is a fact that a disproportionate number of black babies are among the over four thousand babies aborted every day. In fact, it actually amounts to a form of “black genocide.”
Do the moderator and stated clerk of our General Assembly know that the Washington Office is consistently taking these radical positions? Why is this permitted? We are both praying that God will close this Washington Office, which is a cancer on the fabric of the PCUSA.
Rev. Ben Sheldon, (H.R.) and Mrs. Amy Sheldon Elverson, Pa.
Thanks for confirming my perceptions about The Layman
Posted Monday, March 29, 2004
Thank you for your return comment which does confirm my perceptions that The Layman and The Layman Online is not claiming to be a voice uniquely within the Presbyterian Church (USA), and by your return comment seems glad to point that out publically. I presume therefore that the publishing organization “The Presbyterian Lay Committee” is moving in this same direction.
Thank you for the correction and confirmation of my suggestion.
Rev. M. Anderson Sale Lynchburg, Va.
No chance of new stated clerk unless someone drops out of race
Posted Monday, March 29, 2004
I totally agree that at some point one of these gentlemen should drop out of the race for stated clerk. If both of these gentlemen stay in this race there is no chance that we will get a new stated clerk and Lord knows we need one.
Ed McLean Maitland, Fla.
May we truly believe 1 Peter 3:15′
Posted Monday, March 29, 2004
With the People of the Word conference convening June 17-20 at Grove City College, let the body of Christ pray for the Holy Spirit to move in all of our hearts. Unless the Holy Bible is the Word of God and our final authority, we will continually witness the decline of Christian influence in our nation. May we truly believe 1 Peter 3:15, believing that Christ is Lord and every thought captive to the Lordship of Christ.
Lou. S. Nowasielski Wilmington, Del.
Open letter to the Presbytery of Western North Carolina
Posted Friday, March 26, 2004
We were shocked, but not surprised, to read of how the Rev. Parker Williamson has been treated by his own presbytery. We do not, of course, know all the facts but it certainly appears as if he has been judged on the basis of his Biblical theology and courage to stand for these truths in a church whose leadership seems bent on division.
Is it really the case that liberals are the new dogmatists? Is it really the case that today’s prime virtue – tolerance – specifically excludes only those who want to uphold the orthodox truths of the Scriptures as expressed in our historic ecumenical and Reformed confessions?
Would it not be a bold and welcome step from the Presbytery of Western North Carolina to admit to error in this case and retract its judgment immediately, releasing a man whose ministry it has over the years recognized, to continue that ministry, however much he may be perceived as “a thorn in the flesh” of the denominational leadership? Is there no room for Biblical conservative views, freely expressed, in the PCUSA?
We who seek to maintain Biblical orthodox values within the historic Church of Scotland in days of undoubted culturally pluralist challenges and, sometimes, ill thought-out responses to them in our denomination, want to assure Mr. Williamson of our prayers and warm support.
Rev. Dr Norman Maciver, chairman Forward Together Church of Scotland.
Howard ready for stated clerk’s debate
Posted Friday, March 26, 2004
For the record … and for publication.
I am willing to join Bob Davis and Cliff Kirkpatrick for a debate between the candidates for stated clerk at any time, in any place, in order to answer any and all questions asked of us by whoever asks.
I have nothing to hide.
I think it would be great for The Layman, The Presbyterian Outlook, the Presbyterian News Service and Presbyweb to work together to arrange for this debate/forum to be held before the meeting of the General Assembly.
Dr. Rus Howard
Divided evangelicals and spilt votes don’t bode well for stated clerk election
Posted Friday, March 26, 2004
Bob Davis, the leader of the Presbyterian Forum, now stands not only against [Clifton] Kirkpatrick, but also against L. Rus Howard in the run for stated clerk.
This does not bode well for evangelicals because all the liberals have to do is wait it out. Liberals will strike their well-practiced, superior poses and belittle any who criticize Kirkpatrick, drawing moderates toward the status quo as the other two candidates split the evangelical vote. Either Davis or Howard are preferable to Kirkpatrick, but neither has a chance with divided evangelical loyalties and a split vote.
Is it impossible to coordinate this coup?
After much support has been generated for both Davis and Howard, can’t they agree that one of the two should drop the nomination and throw all support behind the other? Should it work, we make one man stated clerk; the other we should name “Presbyterian of the Year.” The alternative seems to be that the flabby status quo prevails.
Noel K. Anderson, executive pastor First Presbyterian Church , Bakersfield, Calif.