As Clerk of Session of Carrollton Presbyterian Church in New Orleans, I’d like to thank you for your coverage of our lawsuit with the PSL (Presbytery of South Louisiana). Presbyterians throughout this country need to know about this case and the actions of their GA and Synod and their attorneys. While the PSL is being bankrupted by this case, it is also rapidly depleting the resources of the little 20-member Carrollton Presbyterian Church. As the PSL drags this out and delays the resolution with every tactic they can muster, we believe they are trying to wear us out and use up our remaining resources in an effort to make us give up the fight. We are very aware of their concern that our success in this lawsuit will set a precedent for others, and our ability to fight this battle on behalf of other congregations was a major consideration in our decision to continue the battle.
We are hoping and praying that we can continue with the suit until the final resolution. As the PSL is getting assistance from the Synod and the GA, we could use the assistance of other churches who believe in this cause – both financial assistance to cover legal fees and prayers to uphold us and give us strength.
Thanks again for your coverage and your prayers,
Mary Koss, Clerk of Session Carrollton Presbyterian Church, New Orleans
Health care reform could prevent abortion
Posted Tuesday, October 27, 2009
I am disheartened by the two articles by Alex Metherell, MD, PhD and Pamela Metherell on the current health care debate. They seem to imply that the proposed changes to our current system would lead to more abortions and cases of euthanasia. I disagree.
I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is wrong, which is why I support the efforts to change our health care system. Under our current system there is an incredible financial incentive to have an abortion if you learn that your unborn child has a serious disability. For many families, even families with health insurance, the cost of caring for a child with a serious disability can be astronomical. Health care reform would help address this problem.
- It would limit the maximum out of pocket that a family would have to pay for medical expenses each year.
- It would eliminate coverage limits that cap the amount that an insurance company will pay over the lifetime of the coverage.
- It would eliminate exclusions for pre-existing conditions, ensuring that even if one had to change insurance providers their child would still be cared for.
These are pro-life policy changes which would give peace of mind to families faced with difficult medical decisions. Parents should not have to make the choice between abortion and bankruptcy.
Jeff Bursch, pastor Shelton Presbyterian
Why not provide quality care for everyone?
Posted Tuesday, October 27, 2009
While other letters have pointed out the many distortions and untruths in the Metherell’s article on health care reform, I am struck by one admission. Pam’s mother, a non-citizen, arrived here and immediately signed up for our government-run, taxpayer supported Medicare Part B and California’s state run health care. The care, which she had not contributed to, which was run by the government, was excellent. Why then is a single-payer government run health care condemned as such a horror by her daughter and son-in-law? Why should we not make such care available to everyone? If an elderly English lady who did not work and pay taxes in our country can get good care on the taxpayers’ nickel, why should we not provide such care for everyone, including the working poor, folks with pre-existing conditions, and families priced out of the system by profit seeking insurance companies?
Rev. Dr. Anne-Marie Hislop Davenport, Iowa
Defending the Metherells’ article
Posted Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Dear Mr. Black,
Your attack on the character of Dr. and Mrs. Metherell is baseless (letter to the editor, Oct. 16), uncalled for and typical of the lack of civility and personal rancour that has become the replacement for discourse in these times. You – at the least – owe them an apology for the language and personal nature of your so-called rebuttal. To label someone a liar for no better reason than that you disagree with their opinion or because you hold to a different ideology is hardly reasoned debate.
I have no idea what your qualifications, background or history are. Accordingly, I have no idea if your opinion is based in fact or “fear-mongering” of your own – accordingly, I make no accusations. I do know something about Alex and Pam because I am acquainted with them. I do know that his earned PhD and MD credentials have led him to make enormous contributions in our society and culture – have you or anyone you love ever needed an MRI? Have you read Strobel and his case for the accuracy of the crucifixion and resurrection? Did you really read the paper you are attacking?
I will take the reasoned experienced and thoughtful analysis of Dr. and Mrs. Metherell over knee-jerk partisanship every time. Rev. Jim Yearsley Tampa, Fla.
Position doesn’t reflect the Church
Posted Wednesday, October 21, 2009
I have real problems with this article on several levels:
1. It is a guilt-by-association presentation. People – like me – that believe we need fundamental changes are not in favor of abortion or euthanasia. None of the current proposals support that either. Please do not suggest linkage that is not there. Yes, I have end of life instructions written in my trust documents – and they do not include euthanasia. I have witnessed situations when people either did not have direction or had direction disregarded, and experience a needlessly prolonged painful end because of aggressive treatment that could not save the life.
2. Your final statement that “the system of health care we now have is working well compared to what other countries have … ”
Data does not support your statement. People in advanced countries with a more equitable system (covers more) support their system in higher percentages than Americans, and their costs are lower, and on many health measures they are better off. Read “The Healing of America” by TR Reed. Or follow almost any serious academic study of our system – it is does not get high grades.
Better yet, start looking at the way our system is changing very rapidly! Companies are shifting a larger cost burden to the employees. Companies are dropping coverage. We will soon be in a situation where the only groups that have truly adequate insurance are seniors (Medicare) and government employees at all levels. This has been happening for a number of years and is escalating.
3. Maybe more importantly, your position does not reflect the Church that has built hospitals for the poor, sent medical missionaries to those left out, been the voice of the beggar. Our medical system today rewards those that “have” and penalizes those that “have not.” I do not believe God will look favorably on us if we are the defenders of that kind of a system. I know people that could not afford insurance, could not get insurance, and could not afford the specialists they needed to deal with Parkinson’s disease. Only when the qualified for Medicare were they covered. And that my friend is a government system for all.
Jasper Melton
Let’s have a debate based on fact
Posted Monday, October 19, 2009
Your article about health-care reform is nothing less than distortion and fear-mongering.
You state: “… but we do know that its authors are tending toward a single universal system designed to reduce costs and modeled after the Canadian and British National Health Service systems,” which is complete specious non-sense.
One tier health-care is not on the table. No one except for a few zealots, even talk about such a thing. And in terms of real-politic, the votes for such an approach are simply not there.
If there is to be a debate on this issue, then fine – let’s have the debate based on fact, rather than fantastic lies. Rich Fallis
The health-care insurance industry has run amuck
Posted Monday, October 19, 2009
It appears that “Abortion, euthanasia and health care reform, Part 2” has changed since it was originally posted, as the article’s ending once implied that no changes were necessary to the health care system. Did I miss an edit, or did something get posted that wasn’t completely finished?
Either way, the claim that “unlike other countries, our health care system provides the best care possible for all of the people all of the time regardless of race, rank or reputation” must be challenged. Such an absolute position is wrong on the very face of it – simple mistakes would make it incorrect. But even then, the belief intended by this statement is also wrong. Doctors race through their patients, sometimes missing vital clues … not because they want to, necessarily, but because they must to earn a living after the insurance companies have squeezed them to the brink. Some of us have gotten superior care, only to have an insurance company refuse to pay for something because of a coding issue – often the fault of that insurance company! Let’s be blunt: the health-care insurance industry has run amuck, seeking profit at every turn and not providing true and reasonable service to patients and reasonable pay to doctors. And Medicare is not the cure-all the Metherells claim. Again, I’ve known of too many people who have suffered at the hands of that system too.
I am conservative on a great many subjects, and I do not support a government-run insurance program as the solution. I do support a solution that offers affordable health-care to all, and I support regulation that will end the unethical and immoral practices of many insurance companies. Your article, sadly, cries “peace, peace” where there is no peace on this subject, not even on the conservative end of the spectrum.
Editor’s note: Some minor edits were made to the article soon after it was posted. Pastor Jason Huff, Church of the Covenant Macomb Township, Mich.
Shocking statements on health care
Posted Monday, October 19, 2009
I occasionally look at the Layman online to hear from some voices in the Presbyterian Church with ideas different from my own. Sometimes there is encouragement of some common ground. Sometimes there is disappointment and discouragement, especially in letters to the editor. What I found yesterday in the article by the Metherells (Health Care, Part II) was shocking, especially so as a presumably endorsed article rather than a letter from a random angry reader.
Joseph Black’s letter did not overstate when it characterized at least two statements in the Metherell article as “blatant lies.” A third statement struck me as much worse. The Metherells write about the uninsured: “There is some argument about the number, but, whatever the number is, it is not because Medicare and/or Medicaid is not available them.” The Metherells cite one example of an elderly person’s experience with Medicaid and Medicare part B. But in actual fact to be eligible for Medicaid in all states, a person must be pregnant or under 6 years of age with family income less that 4/3 of the poverty level, or a child age 6 to 19 whose family has income below the poverty level, or a person under age 21 living on their own, or a person over age 65 who is blind or disabled or meets low income eligibility requirements. While some states exercise an option to allow Medicaid coverage for other low income groups, there are nonetheless an enormous number of individuals living in poverty who are not eligible for Medicaid, let alone the millions of low and middle income people whose inability to acquire coverage puts them in a situation in which any serious illness would quickly move them into poverty.
It seems inconceivable to me that someone with the suffix “M.D.” on their name could not be aware of these simple and very basic facts. (Can it be possible that the editor of a publication publishing articles on health care is also not aware?) Joseph Black’s description is far too kind. Perhaps intentional dishonesty of this sort is not that uncommon, but I hope that we maintain the ability to be shocked in seeing it from someone who was once endorsed as a legitimate candidate for office of Stated Clerk of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
David Carothers Harrisonburg, Va.
‘G-source’ authority on property, but not on theology/morality?
Posted Friday, October 16, 2009
“Heartland cites G-8.0301 and G-8.0401 in the Book of Order in its rationale for selling Gashland property.” [Heartland Presbytery to pursue Gashland property]
“Nowhere does the decision state that G-6.0106b, or any other specific standard, is mandatory.” [What I saw at the fight … is that there is a fight]
I’m just not sure you can quote the G-source as an authority on property, and then claim it doesn’t have any authority on theology/morality. Rev. Kent Moorlach
Statements attempt to ensure the desired religious-political outcomes
Posted Friday, October 16, 2009
Without debating all of the points made by the Metherells, there are two statements that represent blatant lies.
First, the evidence presented by just about every research entity directly contradicts the following statement:
“There is nothing wrong with health care system we now have in the United States. Unlike other countries, it provides the best care possible for all of the people all of the time regardless of race, rank or reputation.”
To suggest that the current health care system provides the best possible care for all people is simply untrue. Vast numbers of persons cannot access the “best possible care” no matter what the Metherell’s say. Check out the facts! As for the “best care possible,” there exists ample data to validate that the outcomes of our health care system are not better than those of every other alternative delivery systems in other countries unless the data sample is made up of only the wealthy. Finally, to suggest that the best possible care is available regardless of race, rank or reputation is to ignore the realities of racism and financial inequity that exists in America. When 1 percent of the citizens hold as much of the wealth as 95 percent of the rest of us, together, it will be increasingly impossible for the middle class to access, let alone pay for, the “best possible care.” How anyone can maintain a straight face in making such a statement is quite remarkable.
The second statement that seems nothing more than pure fear-mongering is:
“Rescuing Social Security will be a result of reducing the average life span of elderly Americans so that fewer Social Security checks have to be sent out. A reduction in the average life span of Americans could save billions of dollars annually in Social Security payments over and above the additional savings in medical care expenses.”To suggest that health care reform will result in “killing granny” so that fewer social security checks need be distributed is ethically bankrupt. How can any professional with integrity make statements that are simply contradicted by the facts, let alone the assumed, if not expressed, intentions of many leaders in both political parties … or even the facts? On second thought, if the level of trust in our culture has been so grossly diminished, I guess most anyone might believe this kind of misrepresentation.
What bothers me most about the above statements is that the truth (as defined by these statements) is not important to the Metherells; rather, these statements represent an attempt to ensure the desired religious/political outcomes (eg, the defeat of any health care reform) without any consideration of what is true. The really sad result is that there is no civil discussion or debate that can lead to further enlightenment by the parties who hold a variety of views. How is that any of us can be so certain, so right, so intolerant, so arrogant, that we can’t possibly model the compassion, caring, integrity and healing outcomes of the life, work and ministry of Jesus. Perhaps we should all take another look at the red letters/words in a red letter edition of the New Testament. One might wish that the “world” would begin to see greater congruence between what Christ commands and how we all live!
Joseph Black Spokane, Wash.
Films’ profits reflect American priorities
Posted Friday, October 16, 2009
As a long time, consistent cover-to-cover reader of The Layman, I read with interest the two-page spread in the September issue promoting the PG-rated film “The Secrets of Jonathan Sperry.”
It is an interesting comment on the present priorities of American theater-goers when one looks at the picture’s grosses since recent release.
After four weeks in general theatrical release “The Secrets of Jonathan Sperry” has grossed $819,000. Contrast that with one week in theatrical release of “Zombieland,” which has grossed $32.8 million. Quite a difference, especially since both releases were generally considered “low budget” films. Neil Leitner
Layman marches lock-step with any far-right political position
Posted Friday, October 16, 2009
Long time, though periodic reader.
I find myself wondering if there is any far-right political position that The Layman does not march in lock-step behind.
Caught the most recent issue where The Layman came out fore-square against the administration’s health care plan. Providing a better health care program than that overseen by the medical insurance industry is an issue that I would have thought you would be comfortable with, but the editorial staff figured out ways to oppose it, and thus they did, probably because it was a Democratic initiative.
I am waiting impatiently for The Layman to come out against gun control, another far-right near religious cause, and advocate the “people in the pews’” right, no, obligation, to come armed to church services.
John Wedsworth Portland, Ore.
The Spirit of Christ can bring genuine revival to apostate denominations
Posted Tuesday, October 13, 2009
In John 4:22 Jesus says to the Samaritan woman, “You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is of the Jews.” This sounds uncharitable and ethnocentric. But then if you turn back to II Kings 17, describing events following the Assyrian conquest of Samaria, we read in v. 33 “They worshipped the Lord, but they also served their own gods in accordance with the customs of the nations from which they had been brought.” Again, in v. 41, it says, “Even while these people were worshipping the Lord, they were serving their idols.”
Now, I realize that there is still a considerable evangelical presence within the PCUSA, but that presence has become a minority within the denomination. The majority view sounds similar to the conditions that are described in II Kings 17. They’re not burning their children in the fire yet (II Kings 17:31) but there does seem to be considerable sympathy for the “pro-choice” position. The pro-gay agenda is in direct contrast to Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Deuteronomy 23:18 and Romans 1:27. I can use my computer to read Web sites and listen to sermons preached in mainstream PCUSA churches, and what I seem to get is an omelet of truth and error.
But then in Acts 8:5-8 we see Philip proclaiming Jesus to the Samaritans, and wondrous things occur as they accept the message. In v. 14-17 they receive the Holy Spirit. In v. 25 Peter and John are “preaching the gospel in many Samaritan villages.”
Quite a few PCUSA congregations have joined my denomination, the EPC. But this often follows rancorous, expensive litigation over property. This is a poor witness to an increasingly secular society. Question: WHAT IF those Presbyterians stopped over-reacting against the charismatics (I’m not one) and became more open to the Holy Spirit? Okay, I realize many in the “progressive” camp insist that whatever they think, say, and do is Spirit-driven. Anybody can invoke the Holy Spirit.
But cannot the Spirit of Christ bring genuine revival to the most apostate of churches and denominations and cause them to align with God’s Word? I shall pray for this to happen.
Larry Brown African Bible College
‘My Bible is about justice’
Posted Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Rev. Williamson has a most un-Biblical view of health care reform. My Bible is about justice. From cover to cover the Bible calls us to justice. People in the U.S. who do not have health coverage do not have it because they cannot afford it. The Bible teaches that poverty is the result of oppression and injustice and that certainly is true of the United States today. The Bible teaches us to respond to poverty by restoring justice. Our responsibility as Christians is to seek both compassion and justice in our nation’s efforts to reform a broken health care system.
Gary VanderArk, MD Professor of Neurosurgery, University of Colorado Denver
Hemorrhaging must be stopped
Posted Tuesday, October 13, 2009
This is troubling to me as a Presbyterian and a citizen: Current legal interpretations of ecclesiastical law and precedent.
Either the presbyteries are failing to secure property deeds legally or something. I don’t understand what is happening.
For the congregations these decisions are helping them but for the PCUSA this is devastating. It looks like the attorneys for the PCUSA better start coming up with “agreements to entrust” their property to the PCUSA. The fact that the property of churches within the presbyteries belongs to the presbyteries has been a fact for generations. This hemorrhaging must be stopped.
Rev. Irvin Porter