Don’t be. We should not be surprised in the least that member of the PCUSA leadership would attend a dinner to honor a man who wishes to destroy Israel, and the USA as well for that matter.
Why would one say such a thing? Just look at what the leadership has wrought the last few General Assemblies, especially the 218th. Many of the leaders and commissioners cheered and celebrated a gay marriage officiated by ordained Presbyterian ministers (retired, I am sure), all in the very shadow of assembly headquarters. Gay marriage at this point is not ordained in the PCUSA. I assume the leadership considers this to be no big deal?
Eating cake with a terrorist is not even mentioned in the Book of Order so the three are no doubt cleansed. Bob Campbell Kingman, Ariz.
Take a stand for marriage
Posted Monday, September 29, 2008
I am sure that you are well aware of the Nov. 4, 2008, voter ballot initiative in California which is referred to “Proposition 8.”
“Proposition 8,” if passed, will amend the California State Constitution to limit marriage between one man and one woman.
It is very encouraging that many Presbyterian churches in California have approved resolutions endorsing the Confessing Church Movement.
In so doing, these churches have taken a stand by proclaiming their commitment to the foundational truths of Scripture. As you have already published, the 3rd of these truths states:
3) God’s people are called to holiness in all aspects of life. This includes honoring the
sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, the only relationship within which
sexual activity is appropriate.When passed, Proposition 8 will codify this truth in the
California constitution.
I am writing to you, as the voice of orthodoxy, to request of all such California sessions to stand up to their commitment for the Confessing Church Movement, and to urge their congregations to vote YES on Proposition 8.
Please do this very urgently. Many voters use absentee ballots and may mail them during the next week or so. Time is running out. As I have read it, the opposition is spending 3 to 1 in order to defeat Proposition 8. If the Confessing Churches don’t take the stand against the homosexual agenda, who will?
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
Stepan Merjanian
I attend the 1st Presbyterian Church of Mountain View, Calif., and have already talked to the interim pastor about endorsing Prop. 8. He promised to bring up the issue with the session.
Yes, no or ignore the question
Posted Monday, September 29, 2008
Just to add extra information to my good friend, Keith Field’s letter about the Sacramento Presbytery meeting: The person who presented the Resolution to the Sacramento Presbytery, Rich McCormac, when asked by several people during the debate about the legality of the directive of the synod to Sacramento’s Council leadership, talked all around the question without ever saying yes. The conclusion several have drawn from that is that the directive was not binding and leadership did not have to appeal. Since he admitted that the resolution was written by the presbytery’s lawyers and since he intelligently told us every detail of the cases and the directive, etc., I can only conclude that he would have given a direct yes or no to the question if he had wanted to. Viola Larson, Elder Fremont Presbyterian Church, Sacramento, Calif.
Ordination of Women
Posted Monday, September 29, 2008
The theological and Biblical positions in this issue are well known, so I wish to address some of the psychological issues and motivations that are involved when claiming Biblical authority to oppose the ordination of women.
To begin, I think that it is correct to say that if a person or group claims the Bible to be the literal and inerrant Word of God and directive in all matters of faith and practice, and then, even in public, for all the world to see, openly refuses to follow the behaviors required by the Bible, it is disingenuous for that individual or group to then select passages where their self-interest is involved and claim that those verses constitute the will of God.
In that regard, some individuals and groups CLAIM unshakable fidelity to the Bible text. But that claim of fidelity to the Bible is false. For example, no one practices the New Testament bans on women wearing gold or expensive clothing. Thankfully. But the fact that we do ignore those commandments renders us unable to claim that we “believe and follow” the Bible in All of our beliefs and practices as the inspired and literal word of God.
Likewise none of our missionaries in other countries tells the slaves in other countries, and there are millions of slaves in other countries, to be nice to their “masters,” as Paul instructed. And as a fourth issue, what individual or group actually believes that you can be bitten on your face, neck, chest, arms and legs by an enormous eight- foot long western diamondback rattlesnake and not be injured seriously? If you actually do believe this literally, please “DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME.”
Clearly, then, faithfulness to biblical dictates is not the motivation for opposing the ordination of women. No one is upset about breaking these other laws, because breaking these laws does not negatively affect the status of men. In fact, we LIKE wives to wear gold and expensive clothing, because it builds our ego.
But threaten the status of men by talking about ordaining women, and some people quote the “men verses” as “GOD’S LAW” and the position of others as “LOSS OF BIBLICAL AUTHORITY,” or “WATERING DOWN THE COMMANDMENTS OF ALMIGHTY GOD.”
Those who oppose the ordination of women are not women-haters. They simply do not want women to have any decision authority about men in marriage or in church. But these men DO want decision power about women in marriage and in the church.
In short, the opposition to having women elders is not REALLY about high and mighty principles. It is instead the railings of men with a sense of entitlement who have the illusion that they are hiding their transparent motives behind a flurry of Bible verses. Some of these men proudly claim that they have a higher calling. Their self-interest does not seem higher to me. James A. Chaney, Ph.D.
Dinner with Ahmadinejad
Posted Friday, September 26, 2008
Joel Hanisek was quoted by the Layman Online as saying this about his dinner with Iranian President Ahmadinejad: “…we’re there to announce there is good news in the world.” I seriously wonder what that “good news” is, and whether it has much to do with the “Good News” of Jesus Christ–His life, death, and resurrection. Anything short of that is a waste of time, and yet another example of being “off task” that so characterizes the institutions of the mainline.
I am happy, however, that questions about Rev. Soodmand will be raised. I hope, however, that the mainline diners are not so taken with their guest (and so eager to nod in agreement with Ahmadinejad when he lambasts US policy) that they forget what kind of leader he is, and the kind of life his government has just instituted for our brothers and sisters (i.e., Christians, in case there is doubt as to what that phrase means) in Iran. Rev. Walter L. Taylor, Pastor Oak Island Presbyterian Church, Oak Island, NC
‘May we declare to others a Gospel that transforms the lives of all people’
Posted Friday, September 26, 2008
During my 26 years of ordained ministry within the PCUSA I have spent a lot of time hanging out at General Assemblies. You can call me committed to this denomination or just crazy. When I was a teenager I logged in many hours wandering around circus side show attractions. I loved when Ringling Brothers came to town. I have discovered that a General Assembly and a circus side show have a lot in common. They both can be outrageous.
At this year’s General Assembly in San Jose I listened intently to the 90-second speeches that were delivered by passionate Presbyterians before the committee that was addressing ordination standards. If you have never been to a GA let me explain that before a committee begins its work, there is time set aside for people to share their feelings — pro and con — about the overture the committee is considering. In this case the debate focused on the ordination standards set forth in our constitution.
I was particularly dumbfounded as I listened to the speech by a young man who traveled across the country to make his opinion known. He stated that he was a student at Union Seminary in Richmond. I was startled when he explained a late night conversation he had with his homosexual partner about Jesus Christ. He related how he was lying in bed next to his partner and asked him what he thought about the person and work of our Savior? I facetiously thought to myself, “Wow, here is another way to share the Gospel … one homosexual man sharing with another homosexual man about the Good News.”
As a denomination we have been very concerned about the loss of membership. Standing before the committee was a young man who was contextualizing for everyone another way to do evangelism. When he finished his speech that advocated the elimination of “fidelity and chastity” from our ordination standards he walked to the back of the room where he was hugged by Michael Adee, director of More Light Presbyterians, and other pro-gay and lesbian Presbyterians. I stood near this young man and said to myself, “I can’t believe what I just heard.” I was flabbergasted by his words.
The next person who stood up to speak was from Midland, Texas. His speech was so different from what everyone just heard. I was so touched by his presentation that I asked him for a copy of what he said. Here is his presentation.
“I am speaking against changing ‘fidelity and chastity’ in the Book of Order. Being here takes
me back to 1996. I was battling the homosexual desires that had been a part of my life since
my youth. I was married, but miserable. I was desperate for something that would give me
license. I was desperate to have my ears tickled with doctrine that fit my feelings and desires.
I found it in gay theology, and armed with that, I left my wife and began my life as an openly
gay man. But soon I became weary of a theology that was based on ME. It fell flat, and I felt
none of the liberation and grace that I thought was coming. I soon discovered that Jesus was
not a white-robed wimp, walking around talking softly and stroking a lamb. He was a
powerful, risen Savior who offered me more than good feelings and sentimental, saccharine
love. He offered me abundant life. My marriage has been restored. I have three kids. I love
the life that gay theology tempted me to leave. I was led astray by false teaching, and rescued
by the perfect teacher. I thank God for pastors, elders, church elders and a Book of Order
that are willing to stand for truth, and to stand with me as I surrendered all of my life to God.
Please do not limit hope for those struggling with unwanted same sex attraction by
changing ‘fidelity and chastity.'”
I am so glad Mr. Goeke had the courage to share these words. Such a presentation is so rare at a General Assembly especially at this year’s gathering in San Jose where homosexuality was proclaimed as a wonderful gift from God. We live in very difficult times. As I look at our denomination’s struggle with homosexuality I pray that we can move beyond the circus side-show attraction we now present to a watching world. May we declare to others a Gospel that transforms the lives of all people, even those who have same-sex attraction. Rev. Jeff Winter, pastor Faith Community Church of Martha’s Vineyard
‘I finally gave up’
Posted Friday, September 26, 2008
Cowan’s letter says it much better than I can. I was an elder in the PCUS and later the PCUSA and lived through all the events he described. I finally gave up. Ted Carey
No one can pretend there’s hope of ‘renewing’ mainline denominations
Posted Friday, September 26, 2008
I have read John Cowan’s open letter, “Parting thoughts on the PSUSA.” And now I have just read about the Episcopal Church’s Bishop John Duncan being deposed as Bishop of Pittsburgh – he is too conservative. Now, it seems, the cards are fully on the table, face up. No one can possibly pretend that there’s hope of “renewing” mainline denominations.
John Cowan was absolutely correct in his assessment of the PCUSA: it is an establishment with only a veneer of religious concerns and is clearly, openly a left-of-center (perhaps even far left) political organization. It is not that it won’t change, as Cowan stated it so bluntly; it can’t change. One can get out, or one can allow oneself to be absorbed into this organization’s agenda, but staying and renewing is simply not an option.
The handling of Bishop John Duncan shows that everything Cowan said about the PCUSA is also true of the Episcopal Church. One can take comfort in the fact that in the “Third World” (I prefer “Majority World”) church, they are now telling the US mainline denominations to keep their aid money. One can only wish that PCUSA evangelicals had the same courage of their convictions. My guess is that Cowan’s “open letter” will be met with a mighty shrug of the shoulders and massive apathy.
I remember reading in American history of how Thomas Paine’s essay Common Sense proved to be a catalyst for revolution. And it was Presbyterians that revolted. While Cowan’s writing is of the same caliber as Paine’s, I suspect that the Presbyterians of today will find it easier to just comply and fall in line with the program. Except when an individual, acting as an individual, chooses to leave the PCUSA, no court in the land can force him to turn around and go back. Cowan described the PCUSA as “doomed.” He’s right. It may win all of the court cases, but it cannot arrest the slide in membership that began in the mid-1960s. Larry Brown Faith Community Church of Martha’s Vineyard
‘Grace and Peace’
Posted Friday, September 26, 2008
I had to laugh at this title. The one letter we received from the Heartland AC during our difficult time was signed “peace and sunshine.” Stacy Boan, Elder The Lighthouse Presbyterian Church
Leftist ideology reigns
Posted Friday, September 26, 2008
Your recent article only cements what most of us have known for a long time. The PC(USA) is not interested in advancing cause of God’s justice, only in advancing their own leftist ideology, that most of the rank and file find so repugnant. Dr. Mike Porter Norton Presbyterian Church and Learning Center, Norton, VA
Back in the Battle Again
Posted Friday, September 26, 2008
There are parts of this article that do not represent the meeting very well. First, the petition motion as stated was modified slightly before the vote. I’ll get back to that.
More importantly, the presbytery was essentially acting under the perception that its hands were tied. We were told that the synod had DIRECTED the presbytery to file the appeal, and that there would be consequences if we did not follow the directive. There was much debate over whether three persons from synod had the authority to issue such a directive. I’m still not clear as to what transpired with this directive. And we were told that the synod was going to take over the case regardless of the presbytery’s actions. What this motion was really about was to request that the actions be laid in the synod’s hands, rather than the presbytery’s, because the presbytery, as evidenced in multiple prior decisions, didn’t really want to pursue it. So, if the synod was going to insist, then we wanted them to pay for it. An amendment not shown in the motion printed in the Layman article said:
…including the Appeal and to provide or obtain funding in connection therewith.
That amendment became:
…including the Appeal and to provide funding, from sources other than Sacramento
Presbytery, in connection therewith This amendment was adopted.
The voting on the final motion was close. Also, a substitute motion to direct the officers to drop the appeal failed. An amendment to limit “the Suits” to Roseville and Fair Oaks also failed.
These amendments were proposed after the substitute motion failed. This is important, because two other churches in Sacramento Presbytery have voted to leave the PCUSA. By comparison, we had a rather “gracious” agreement with Pioneer church – they get to leave with property (presbytery gets right of first refusal if they sell). We are left to wonder if this decision will be appealed by Westminster. The other church has a less certain outcome. Keith Field, Elder Peace Presbyterian Church
Liberal sermon had little effect on presbytery’s evangelical resolve
Posted Monday, September 22, 2008
The Presbytery of San Joaquin voted on September 18 to “affirm the action of San Diego Presbytery stated in the response to the actions of the 218 General Assembly (2008).” The vote came with little discussion and without division following a sermon delivered by Dr. Phil Butin, president of San Francisco Theological Seminary, entitled “Family Values.” In the sermon, Butin spoke of adolescents who – for childish reasons – feel that they no longer want to be part of the larger family. As several congregations in San Joaquin Presbytery are seriously considering leaving the PCUSA, the implications were clear to a fine point. He spoke of a teary-eyed, loving Father who desperately seeks the fellowship of his disgruntled, teenage son. Without explicitly saying that disgruntled evangelicals have no legitimate rationale for wanting out of the PCUSA, the drift was unmistakable. Butin’s sermon and pre-presbytery meetings with COM, CPM and others apparently had little effect upon San Joaquin’s decidedly evangelical resolve.
Noel Anderson
Discomfort with PCUSA comes from the misplaced actions of leadership
Posted Monday, September 22, 2008
If one really belongs to Christ, and if one believes the Scriptures are the Word of God, and if one is following those Scriptures and actually living in accordance with Christ’s requirements: then that person cannot in good faith come against a congregation that wants to affiliate with another branch of Christ’s body.
Christ started and is the head of His Church. Denominations are the creation of men. Moving from one affiliation to another within Christ’s Church just may be under the direction of the Holy Spirit. We should be very careful not to come against any move of God.
If, however, a supposedly Christian congregation desired to leave and affiliate with a non-Christian group (which would not be a move of the Holy Spirit) then all actions to assist members of that congregation who want to remain Christian are not only warranted, but are absolutely necessary.
Allow me to change the rhetorical questions just a little and then add a statement to each one.
- “The goal of the PCUSA is mission and discipleship, not ownership of property.” [Then assist those to affiliate with another Christian group. These actions will be seen by other Christians on this Earth and just may encourage others to seek to join with PCUSA.]
- “Members of PCUSA are to let love be our guide in all that we do.” [Then act in true love, and do not give the appearance of autarchy.]
- “Fighting over the use of property or over title to property damages faith and destroys the witness of the PCUSA.” [A true statement in the original wording and in this wording.]
I have been vitally concerned with many actions of those in authority within the headquarters of the PCUSA for many years and have been laboring under the misapprehension that things would get back in line with God’s Holy Scripture without having laity get up in arms throughout the denomination. However, now many are becoming very vocal and the result is not reform from within, but has led to a desire to get out and affiliate with others. My personal discomfort is not being caused by actions of the PCA nor any other Christian group. My discomfort with PCUSA is coming from the misplaced actions of those in positions of leadership.
Morris H. Bell Jr. Virginia Beach, Va.
Pray that the Kirk ‘will be guided by the will of God’
Posted Monday, September 22, 2008
Peggy has said it so eloquently. What else can we say? Do continue to pray for the Kirk that we will be guided by the will of God in our voting. Pray that the Kirk members will stay united no matter what the outcome of this trial.
David Watts
The Union in 1983 was too good to be true
Posted Monday, September 22, 2008
I thought the Union in 1983 was too good to be true. As a PCUS member, I had some major reservations – but with Dr John Anderson and others in the lead, maybe it would work out! It did not work out!
Someone asked me recently, “Why do you stay?” My only response was not very connectional, but I said that I think that the Kingdom of God (the Church) is closer to the local church than any administrative group. The GA and the Louisville staff are as John defines – we inherited the liberal direction from the merger. It started in the late 1920’s and still is with us today.
As the national organization dies, as it will, the local church and in many cases the presbytery will still prevail. I am in no way a member of the “National Church.” It does its own thing which I feel has nothing to do with the Church of Jesus Christ – only with fruit and vegetables and bottled water, etc. I saw that first-hand as a commissioner to the Birmingham GA. I pray that it will not prevail and die rapidly!
Kermit Gay Orlando, Fla.