Posted Monday, August 29, 2011
I applaud the efforts of those attending the Fellowship Gathering and those leading. I too, ask, why? Why do we as a denomination even have to be having a meeting of this sort? The issues that have been at the forefront for many years have torn us apart. Starting with the Confession of 1967 when humanism was introduced as one of our confessions to be used in church, we have seen a once great denomination dwindle in size from 4.5 million to approximately two million. We are a fractured group and the fractures are too deep and too wide to repair. The issue of ordination of gays and lesbians into the ministry is not an issue in the fundamental churches, only mainline churches. Why? It is simple. They state clearly what they believe and stay with it. If one does not want to accept their doctrine and theology system, they don’t join. Plain and simple: If you don’t like our way, go somewhere else to worship your way but we are not changing!
Our fracture in the PCUSA is not only centered around Amendment 10-A. The theology held by some that Jesus is not the only way to salvation is fracturing in and of itself. When PCUSA leadership goes to the Middle East and meets with Israel’s avowed enemies and on the same trip do not meet with the leadership of Israel, one wonders whose side are we on. When missionaries are cut from the budget and money is spent on fighting fast food chains over labor issues, one wonders what kind business are we in; legal business or the business of saving souls and bringing people to Jesus Christ. Which by the way gets all too little attention in most PCUSA churches. When was the last time you heard your pastor issue an altar call?
It is time to say goodbye to PCUSA, form our own group that truly reforms the church, get back to the greatness that once was ours, and let the liberals have their own brand of Christianity. God will be the judge as to which group was right.
Jack Fox, inactive elder First Presbyterian Church, Towanda, Pa.
Has elder read Ephesians 6:10-20?
Posted Monday, August 29, 2011
Elder Marston M. Meyers (August 22 letter), writes “When you use Bible verses as a weapon, you are acting as a Pharisee.”
I must ask if he’s recently read Ephesians 6:10-20?
The Whole Armor of God: Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak. (Ephesians 6:10-20 ESV)
According to Paul, we are in a battle, and the Word of God is the “Sword of the Spirit.” Heaven forbid that we fail to use it!
Paul Hubert Carmichael, Calif.
There is no common ground between the wicked and the righteous
Posted Monday, August 29, 2011
Joe Duffus wrote, “Even so, I will respond to her closing rhetorical question: ‘How large is our common ground and why do our differences have to take such precedence over it?’ Our common ground is the Bible. It is Jesus and the Holy Spirit as revealed to us through the Scriptures and through the group discernment that is part of our life as Christians. Our confessions and book of order flow from this. But our common ground cannot be found by running out-of-bounds with our own definitions of commonly understood words. Nor is that common ground found without a commitment to engage head-on in a true dialog where questions are alternately asked, then answered. Without that commitment, we continue to argue past each other and the mission of the church is lost.”
My response to this fine reply by Joe Duffus to Edwards is: There is no common ground between the wicked and the righteous. Edwards’ belief system contradicts the Holy Bible as many of us know even though Edwards redefines anything that will support her sin. There is no sense arguing with Edwards, just Pray for her.
Lou. S. Nowasielski South Park, PA
Check out presbytery statistics
Posted Monday, August 29, 2011
The General Assembly Mission Council posted presbytery statistics on August 22, 2011.
One can go there and check the condition of one’s presbytery and its progress over the last ten years.
George Hill Port Allen, La.
Letter writer denigrates the idea that there is but one path
Posted Monday, August 29, 2011
Marston Myers expounds the “liberal” position at length. Along the way he sort of denigrates the idea that there is but one path. Gee, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me.” I guess he reserves the right to decide who said that and whether it matters, and whether or not it might upset someone. I don’t have that problem (thank GOD).
Fred Edwards
There is nothing “blind” about traditional Reformed faith and values
Posted Monday, August 29, 2011
I always welcome the opportunity to elucidate on any and all positions regarding Scripture, doctrine and liturgy. It’s been a while since anyone’s used the phrase “Dominionism” in reference to my overall stand. To return the compliment of candor with the same, there were a few portions in Myers’ letter I find rather disturbing, to say the least.
First of all, I do not consider the thousands of presbytery commissioners that opted to defy explicit Scriptural condemnations and centuries of time honored Presbyterian ways and means as having been “duped.” On the contrary, I find them as accessories in the full frontal assault on traditional Presbyterianism; who owe their influence only to a screening process designed to weed out the wheat and favor the tare.
Secondly, none in his or her right mind would endorse the ways in which Galileo and others were treated, in the cause of science. Incidentally, Myers would be well advised to know that virtually all the “Fathers” of modern science were God fearing men who clung to the Scriptures as the infallible rule for faith and practice. Issaac Newton once said :
“For while comets move in very eccentric orbs in all manner of positions, blind fate could never make all the planets move one and the same way in orbs concentric, some inconsiderable irregularities excepted which may have arisen from the mutual actions of comets and planets on one another, and which will be apt to increase, till this system wants a reformation.”
Sounds like a man who believed in God’s absolute sovereignty to me. The attempt to group the two is yet another example of shrewish posturing. Who would group the soundly astronomical with the clearly abominable? What sane person would compare the plight of Galileo to a group that offers nothing conclusive on the nature vs. nurture question? Ridiculous.
If Myers does indeed see the majority of people in line with this neo-Presbyterianism, perhaps Myers should concede to having missed the big picture. Statistics make it abundantly clear that it is the denominations which cling fervently to classical truths and tenets that enjoy the growth and stability. If things are going so well and the trends are attributable to this “inclusive” culture, explain the mass exodus from the PCUSA. The zeal of Myers postmodern platitudes fails to conceal the fact that opposition to traditional apologetics tends to fly in the face of statistical evidence. When you grant this fact a mere cursury glance, you indeed miss the big picture.
Finally, there is nothing “blind” about traditional Reformed faith and values; as God calls the elect to a vibrant and active faith. While Myers and I agree that we shouldn’t think alike, we differ in the respect that there is only one faith.
Laird Eric Wells of Glencairn
Elder’s writings are a direct contradiction to the Apostle Paul
Posted Monday, August 29, 2011
In his third letter to The Layman Online, Marston Myers wrote, “We Christians are not of one mind and thank God for that! It is our diversity of belief, path and function that forms the foundation for spiritual growth, evolution and re-connection with God! Our diversity is our ultimate strength.” Yet in this, he comes into direct contradiction against the Apostle Paul, who wrote, “I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.” (I Cor. 1.10) But Myers, in his first letter, wrote approvingly of Paul’s exhortation to the Corinthian Church in the next several verses (12-13) against divisions in the Church. But one simply cannot have it both ways: Far from being the Church’s “ultimate strength”, diversity in fundamental beliefs causes divisions in the Church, such as the one that Myers ostensibly laments.
Consider Myers’ own contention from his first letter: “I contend that we are God expressing in divine creation, and that it is through our diversity of faith, function and call that we allow God to fully express and unfold His creation.” I fundamentally disagree. We are God’s creatures; we are not God’s self-expression. We are created in His image, to be sure (Gen. 1.26-27), but we are, in our very nature, fallen (Gen. 3.6-7,15-19). “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.” (Rom. 3.10-11) It is a fallacy to say that whatever human beings come up with in matters of faith is of God, irrespective of our standing before Him, for “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jer. 17.9) And “Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.” (Jn. 2.24-25)
Now, shall we say that there is no diversity in Christ? Of course not, for Christ was “slain, and by (His) blood (He) ransomed people to God from every tribe and language and people and nation.” (Rev. 5.9) But in doing so, He did not leave them in the condition in which they had been prior to His intervention in their lives, as if one whose “heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick,” is suddenly able to speak and do the things of God. Christ “gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.” (Tit. 2.14) For the people Christ ransomed by His blood to be “zealous for good works,” we must be purified. After all, precisely because we are fallen, just because a work seems good to us does not mean that God likewise reckons it as good. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts; neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Is. 55.8-9)
How, then, are we to discern the mind of the Lord? The author of Hebrews wrote, “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son.” (Heb. 1.1-2) But of course, Jesus Christ no longer walks the earth but has ascended to the Father (Mk. 16.19, Lk. 24.51, Acts 1.9-11). His words, then, come to us from the apostles, to whom Christ gave “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” and into whom He breathed His Holy Spirit, so that, invested with His authority, “whatever (they) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever (they) loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16.19, Jn. 20.22-23) Thus it is that Christ has built His Church “on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows together into a holy temple in the Lord (Mt. 16.18, Eph. 2.20-21).
The Bible, then, consists of the Old and New Testaments: The Old Testament is the compilation of the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings as received by the Lord Jesus and His Apostles. The New Testament is the compilation of the writings of the Apostles of the Lord Jesus (Matthew, John, Paul, and Peter) and those known and endorsed by them (Mark, Luke, James, Jude, and the author of Hebrews). The canon of the books of the Bible was not established by some ancient council of the Church (the Council of Trent in 1545 was the first ecumenical council of the Church to define the canon of Scripture), lest one say that the authority of Scripture is subject to the authority of the Church. Rather, the canon of Scripture was gradually recognized by the Church over time until, by the third century, the canon was in the form in which it is found in our Bibles today (plus the books of the Apocrypha, which the Protestant Reformers rejected from the canon because they were not in the Old Testament canon received by our Lord and His Apostles). The so-called “Gospel of Mary”, which Myers proffers as a “sacred text…for those willing to seek all of God’s truth,” was not considered by the ancient Church for inclusion in the canon of Scripture because it was, like the so-called “Gospels” of Thomas and Judas, written by someone falsely under the name of someone in the legitimate Scriptures as an attempt to promote his or her anti-Christian, Gnostic philosophy.
In his latest letter, Myers argues, “When you use Bible verses as a weapon, you are acting as a Pharisee.” If this is true, then the Lord Jesus was “acting as a Pharisee” when He used Bible verses against not only the Pharisees (Mt. 12.1-8,38-42, 15.1-20, 19.1-9, 22.34-46, 26.63-68, Mk. 2.23-28, 8.11-13, 12.28-37, 14.61-65, Lk. 6.1-5, 20.41-44, 22.66-71, Jn. 5.39-40, 10.31-39), but also Satan (Mt. 4.1-11, Lk. 4.1-13), the citizens of Nazareth (Lk. 4.16-30), the citizens of Chorazin and Bethsaida (Mt. 11.20-24, Lk. 10.13-15), the money-changers (Mt. 21.12-13, Mk. 11.15-17, Lk. 19.45-46, Jn. 2.14-17), and the Sadducees (Mt. 22.29-33, Mk. 22.29-33, Mk. 12.24-27, Lk. 20.34-40). Jesus’ condemnation of the Pharisees did not include their “use (of) Bible verses as a weapon,” but rather for “teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Mt. 15.9) and having “neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done without neglecting the others.” (Mt. 23.23) Indeed, the Lord Jesus even commended the crowds and His disciples to “observe whatever (the scribes and Pharisees) tell you” because they “sit on Moses’ seat.” (Mt. 23.2)
Now when the Apostle John identified the Lord Jesus as the Word of God (Jn. 1.1-18, Rev. 19.13), he did so in order to identify Him with the Scriptures, which are identified throughout as the Word of God (Dt. 8.3, 11.18, Ps. 33.4, 119.1-176, Prov. 30.5-6, Is. 40.8, Jn. 10.35, II Tim. 3.14-17, II Pet. 1.19-21). As Jesus Himself said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” (Mt. 5.17) And, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” (Lk. 24.44) As John Calvin put it, “This is the first clause, that we owe to the Scripture the same reverence which we owe to God; because it has proceeded from him alone, and has nothing belonging to man mixed with it.” (Commentary on II Tim. 3.16) To be sure, we do not worship the Scriptures, as Myers insinuated in his first two letters when accused us of Bibliolatry—we worship the God whose Word the Scriptures are. And accordingly, we strive to conform our lives to the teachings of Scripture precisely because Scripture is the Word of God.
The author of Hebrews wrote, “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” (Heb. 4.12) Likewise, the Apostle Paul wrote that the Word of God is “the sword of the Spirit”—the only offensive weapon in the “whole armor of God” with which we believers are to equip ourselves (Eph. 6.10-17). The Lord Jesus, the Prince of Peace (Is. 9.6), said, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on the earth. I have not come to bring peace but a sword.” (Mt. 10.34) Indeed, the Apostle John depicts the ascended and glorified Christ as having a sharp, two-edged sword protruding from His mouth (Rev. 1.16, 19.15) with which “in righteousness he judges and makes war” (Rev. 19.11). And to the church in Pergamum He said, “Therefore, repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against (those who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate,) with the sword of my mouth.” (Rev. 2.6,15-16) Now as previously noted, Myers suggests that there are “sacred texts” outside the canon of Scripture “for those willing to seek all of God’s truth.” But the Word of God says, “Do not add to (God’s) words, lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar.” (Prov. 30.6)
The Word of God is a sword that is to be wielded against false teachers. False teachers are accounted as such because of three reasons: (1) they add their own beliefs and opinions to Scripture, (2) they subtract from Scripture those teachings which they do not believe or with which they disagree, and (3) they distort the teachings of Scripture to mean something other than that which they mean in the context (a) in which the particular passages were written and (b) of the whole of Scripture. One is accounted a false teacher for any of these three reasons, but most false teachers are guilty of all three.
False teachers were a problem in the early Church. The Apostle Paul wrote to the Galatians, warning them against the Judaizers, who taught that one must submit to the Ceremonial Law (which was abolished when Christ became the one sacrifice for all sins for all time, Heb. 9.11-10.18) in addition to trusting in Christ (Gal. 1.6-2.14). He also spoke to the Thessalonians against false teachers (at least one of which had apparently sent them a letter in Paul’s name) who claimed that the Lord Jesus had already returned and raptured the Church, leaving the Thessalonians behind (II Thess. 2.1-3). And he wrote to Timothy, “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and they will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.” (II Tim. 4.3-4) The Apostle Peter, after having declared that Scripture is not a matter of one’s own interpretation but is God’s own revelation, wrote, “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.” (II Pet. 2.1) He also wrote that “the ignorant and unstable twist (our beloved brother Paul’s letters) to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” (II Pet. 3.15-16) The Apostle John also enjoins us, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (I Jn. 4.1) False teaching in the Church was also the subject of his second epistle. And Jude, the brother of our Lord, wrote, “I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” (Jude 3-4) And the Lord Jesus Himself spoke against the churches at Pergamum and Thyatira for tolerating false teachers (Rev. 2.12-29).
Indeed, false teaching has been a problem in the Church of Jesus Christ in every age. For example, the heresy of Arianism that the Church battled in the post-Nicene Age returned in the Age of the Reformation in the form of Socinianism and again in recent centuries in Unitarianism and the Jehovah’s Witness cult. In the Presbyterian Church (USA), the heresy of theological liberalism began affecting the denomination’s seminaries in the late 19th century. In the 1920s, 1274 minister members decried the denomination’s insistence that its ministers be required to believe and teach the inerrancy of Scripture, the Virgin Birth of Christ, the reality of miracles, the Substitutionary Atonement, and the bodily and historical Resurrection of Christ. Ever since then, the PCUSA has lost its stomach to prosecute false teachers for their heresy, instead preferring to think of them as merely having a “different interpretation” of Scripture that is no less valid than Biblical orthodoxy. In the 1960s, the denomination watered down its ordination standards. No longer must ordained officers “believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, totally trustworthy, fully inspired by the Holy Spirit, the supreme, final and the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” Now they must only “accept the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be, by the Holy Spirit, the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ in the Church universal and God’s Word to” them. Also in the 1960s, the PCUSA enshrined in its Book of Confessions (§9.29) the belief that “the Scriptures … are nevertheless the words of men, conditioned by the language, thought forms, and literary fashions of the places and times at which they were written. They reflect views of life, history, and the cosmos which were then current.” The PCUSA’s seminaries teach its future pastors not to regard the words of Scripture as God’s revealed truth, normative for all believers, but as mere conduits through which God encounters the individual believer, revealing Himself to him or her in a private revelation (hence “God’s Word to you” rather than the “only infallible rule of faith and practice”) that may be used to the benefit of others, but should by no means be considered normative for all believers. Myers fully buys into this divisive teaching when he writes, “It is, in fact, confessional to see the Bible as a product of human writing while acknowledging that the living Word is Christ among us.”
Again, I fundamentally disagree. This line of reasoning leads to a different christ than the Jesus who is revealed in the Bible (Jn. 14.6). This line of reasoning leads to a different god than the Father of Jesus Christ (Is. 45.20-21). This line of reasoning leads to a different gospel than the one that Paul preached (Gal. 1.8-9). This line of reasoning leads to a different religion than “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 3) This line of reasoning leads away from Jesus Christ and into myths of one’s own devising (II Tim. 4.3-4).
This religion, with which Myers is so enamored, is not another form or interpretation of Christianity but a rival thereunto, hostile toward all those who reject its most basic premises. Consider Myers’ own condescending attitude toward Bible-believing Christians: “I invite all of you to consider, if only for a moment, that your literal and unbending belief (blind faith?) in the Bible as the literal and unchanging Word of God is preventing you from seeing the greater picture.” Again, “The belief that there is only one path to God along with an unwavering (blind) faith of the ultimate truth of everything being contained within one digest of material that we call The Bible vs. the acknowledgement that each of us have inherited the right and duty to seek and know God in our own way to God’s ultimate glory.” And as previously noted, he has likewise accused Bible-believing Christians in his first two letters of bibliolatry.
But let us entertain, for the moment, Myers’ belief that Biblical Christianity is not true, that God has not, in fact, authoritatively and objectively revealed Himself in the pages of Scripture. Let us consider his “metaphysical and internally based system to connect with God.” How do we know that our metaphysical ideas about God comport with the metaphysical reality of God? Suppose that you have ideas about God that are fundamentally at odds with my ideas about God. Who is to say that your ideas about God are correct and that my ideas are wrong? Or that mine are correct and yours are wrong? Or that both are partially correct and partially wrong? How do we know that we are not both completely mistaken? And on what basis do we think that we actually have come to know God? If A and B mutually contradict one another, then either A is true or partially true and B is false, B is true or partially true and A is false, A and B are both partially true (to the extent that what is true in A and what is true in B do not mutually contradict each other) and both partially false, or A and B are both false. It cannot be that A and B are both true. This is true not only of physics but of metaphysics as well. One cannot legitimately claim that if A is true for me and false for you and if B is true for you and false for me, then A and B can still be equally valid truths. What makes A and B valid is not our belief or unbelief in them, but whether or not they comport with reality, and that is true both of the physical realm and also of the metaphysical realm.
Moreover, suppose one makes contact with a spirit. How does one know that this spirit is from God and is not an evil spirit whose intent is to deceive us into believing that it is from God in order to lead us further astray? Now one might say, “I do not believe in evil spirits,” but one’s unbelief cannot negate the reality of evil spirits if they do, in fact, exist. But lest one say that the idea that a spirit might deceive us in order to lead us astray is far-fetched, Scripture says that “even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.” (II Cor. 11.14)With competing claims to metaphysical truth, against what objective standard are we to judge these claims? The individual? “As for man, his days are like grass; he flourishes like a flower of the field; for the wind passes over it, and it is gone, and its place knows it no more.” (Ps. 103.15-16) In his past two letters, Myers has made mention of his age. In fifty years, he will be gone. In 150 years, so too will all who remember him, and he will have passed out of living memory. Man is fleeting. “The years of our life are seventy, or even by reason of strength eighty; yet their span is but toil and trouble; they are soon gone, and we fly away.” (Ps. 90.10) And human character is fatally flawed. Who among us has never spoken a lie? Who among us has never harbored ill will toward another? Who among us has never coveted that which belongs to another? Who among us has consistently loved his neighbor as himself? “There is no soundness in my flesh because of your (the Lord’s) indignation; there is no health in my bones because of my sin.” (Ps. 38.3) So man is quite incapable of setting an objective standard of metaphysical truth for himself.
But without an objective standard, we have no truth of God. We have ideas about God, but we have no truth, for we have no objective standard by which to measure these ideas, to determine whether or not they comport with metaphysical reality. Now one might say that there is no objective standard, for the only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth. But a self-contradictory absolute has no validity, for only one who knows absolutely everything can say for certain that there are no absolutes, and by knowing absolutely everything, such a one contradicts his own claim. Myers accuses Christians who believe the Bible to be “the literal and unchanging Word of God” of having “blind faith.” But in fact, it is Myers whose faith is blind, for he lacks any objective criteria by which he can say, “This particular belief about God is true.”
To the woman at the well, the Lord Jesus said, “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.” (Jn. 4.22) He said this because God made his covenant with the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And God entrusted His self-revelation to the prophets and apostles, all of whom were Jews on account of their descent from these three men. Indeed, Jesus Christ was Himself descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and therefore a Jew on account of His birth. He came to fulfill God’s self-revelation and to thereby become “the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” (I Jn. 2.2)
We trust the Bible implicitly because it is the Word of God. Therefore, we worship what we know according to the Scriptures, and that is Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God made flesh, who died for our sins and rose again bodily and historically from the dead, and at His return, He will “save those who are eagerly waiting for him.” (Heb. 9.28) The Apostle Paul “decided to know nothing among (the Corinthians) except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” (I Cor. 2.2) And he “did not shrink from declaring to (the Ephesians) the whole counsel of God.” (Acts 20.27) Being a student of Gamaliel (Acts 22.3), he learned the Old Testament Scriptures well and accounted them the Word of God (II Tim. 3.15-17), and he himself wrote fully half the books of the New Testament and knew when he was writing them that they, too, were accounted the Word of God (I Thess. 2.13). And although one can have a knowledge of the Scriptures without truly knowing Jesus Christ, the better one knows the Scriptures, the better one is equipped to know Jesus Christ, as Paul did. And as the Lord Jesus told the Pharisees, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me.” (Jn. 5.39)
Indeed, we who know God can say with the Psalmist in total confidence regarding the Scriptures, “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.” (Ps. 119.105)
Loren Golden
Many in the PCUSA are facing the same difficult choice
Posted Monday, August 22, 2011
Beautifully stated and true of our sweet church as well. How hard it must be for you to leave. So many of us are facing the same difficult choice. May God bless you and your family.
Cathy McKinnis Faith Presbyterian Church
How not to become a pillar of salt
Posted Monday, August 22, 2011
In regards to previous and recent actions of the General Assembly of the PCUSA and the continuing debate concerning such actions, I offer my attached letter of resignation from the PCUSA as an example of personal commitment to God’s Word.
For those still in the PCUSA and yet undecided, please read Luke 17:20-37.
On Sunday, July 2, 2006, our minister and about one third of the active congregation of the First Presbyterian Church of Beeville, Texas left to form the Providence Presbyterian Church, a mission under the care of the South Texas Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America.
We left “the window” and all of the church properties behind, going forward with only our commitment to God’s Word and our faithfulness to His call. God has blessed our congregation of Reformed believers and each of us as we continue in His service to do His work.
We have petitioned the South Texas Presbytery and will become a particular church in October, 2011.
Elected Moderator, Acting Clerk, Session and Members of First Presbyterian Church
Beeville, Texas 78102
Re: Response to Action of General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA)
ACTION: The action by the majority of the voting delegates to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA on June 20, 2006 to allow any or all church officers and ministers to be un-chaste in single life, unfaithful in marriage, and to live in homosexual or lesbian relationships has resulted in the Presbyterian Church USA rejecting and denying the validity of GOD’S WORD as found in his Holy Scriptures.
RESPONSE: It is in response to this action of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA that I, Donald R. Sugarek make the following public announcements effective as of the date of this letter:
1. I resign my elected position as Clerk of the Session of the First Presbyterian Church of Beeville, Texas.
2. I resign my elected position as a Ruling Elder in the Class of 2008 of the First Presbyterian Church of Beeville, Texas.
3. I resign my elected position as a Ruling Elder of the First Presbyterian Church of Beeville, Texas.
4. I request that the Session of the First Presbyterian Church of Beeville, Texas permanently delete my name from any and all membership rolls of said Church at the next stated Session meeting after the receipt of this letter.
5. I further request that after the Session accepts my resignations and takes action on my request for membership deletion, that the Session attach this letter as a permanent addition to the Minutes of the Session meeting that these actions occurred.
Donald R. Sugarek, member Providence Presbyterian Church, Beeville, Texas
God will provide
Posted Monday, August 22, 2011
It is time to demonstrate our belief and commitment by turning over the PCUSA pension funds to the public coffers. We should also cease any life and health insurance perquisites, and forward those monies to hospitals. God will provide.
Mark Saunders
‘When you use Bible verses as a weapon, you are acting as a Pharisee’
Posted Monday, August 22, 2011
Since we are forced to use this limited communication format which takes days instead of seconds to process a conversation, I save my angst and respond to numerous posts at one time.
First of all, for most of us, the use of bloviation does not impress or empower your arguments. Phrases such as “which is understood to interlineate a visceral contempt for traditional presuppositionalism” (Eric Wells, letters 8/15/11) only serve to highlight the arrogant and intransigent Dominionism which is the foundation of many of these posts and protracted arguments. When you argue your case or point and hang the entire argument on verse after verse of the Bible alone you immediately reduce your case to all equally valid definitions, viewpoints and interpretations. In the legalization and codification of the Bible, your message is lost. When you use Bible verses as a weapon, you are acting as a Pharisee.
All truth is God’s truth. I invite all of you to consider, if only for a moment, that your literal and unbending belief (blind faith?) in the Bible as the literal and unchanging Word of God is preventing you from seeing the greater picture. As the church tortured and killed people for promoting the idea that the earth was round and revolved around the sun, from a larger perspective the earth actually was (and still is) round and does in fact revolve around the sun. No matter how fervently the priests beat the “heretics,” God’s truth existed. I know that the Bible is “inspired” yet was in fact “assembled” by man in the early centuries omitting many then sacred texts i.e. the Gospel of Mary, which is today easily found and read for those willing to seek all of God’s truth. A metaphysical and internally based system to connect with God was replaced with an externally focused, fear and control based system, oddly enough benefiting the church/state of the day which lasted for centuries. A system so successful that millions are still enslaved spiritually and physically by the Papacy today. This system has caused and still causes more pain and death than any other system envisioned by man through over population (birth control is a “sin,” wars in the name of Christ, attempting to legitimize slavery as Bible truth, the Crusades which continue even today (Swedish attacks), etc. and the removal of wealth from the masses to support the “church” in return for absolution from God of “sins” by the very priesthood that defines the “sins.” Genius! This is of course why we call ourselves “Protestants.” For me, and millions of others like me, the Bible is inspired and is to be viewed as such using historical and cultural filters as one of many tools to seek God. There are other sacred texts that are also inspired and, amazingly, for those that seek truth many of the same answers can be found contained within. A 2,000 year old map put together by early explorers may give me a basic lay of the land but I cannot use it to properly navigate downtown San Francisco in 2011. We also have access to “inspiration” directly from God at many times in our lives as we pray and meditate. It is, in fact, confessional to see the Bible as a product of human writing while acknowledging that the living Word is Christ among us. In real time, right here and right now.
George Hill’s (Letters 8/15/11) comments regarding the Office of Public Witness are both arrogant and misinformed. Many of us receive regular updates from PCUSA and many of its committees via RSS feeds or email lists and can comment in near real time. These courageous and true workers for Christ represent a broad cross section of not only PCUSA but Christianity as a whole. I sit in a pew and contribute directly to such works and speak loudly in favor of such actions. I have forwarded the Hill and Well’s letters (now public domain when published on The Layman) verbatim to many sites with an aggregate of many tens of thousands of readers worldwide as a perfect example of what those who are now in the voting minority of the PCUSA attempt to promulgate within their own shrinking ranks. I suggest that the “legions of youth and young adults” that Wells alludes to are simply those that he disagrees with and is terrified with the realization that he no longer can control them with fear based theocracy and that the majority is now coming from behind him and is in fact replacing him. I do not know where I fit in the demographics that Well’s uses, but I am 57 years old and I see many older and the vast majority of younger members in alignment with my views. If Well’s is so secure in his position than why is he so agitated? Surely his place in “The Elect” is secure. I do thank Hill for reminding me to send along with my own analysis the suggestion to those that may read my contributions and are so aligned that they also respond to their own representatives across the globe with their clear support of the actions of PCUSA re: welcoming and affirming the LGBT population both inside and outside the church both lay and clergy alike as well as the actions of the Office for Social Witness Policy of the PCUSA as the work of Christ on earth for the ultimate betterment of mankind.
The use of fear based, dogmatic Dominionism of the “elect” is becoming the visible hallmark of the “evangelical” movement. As a PCUSA elder and presbytery committee member working on communication across the denomination I align with those seeking the larger answers and allowing for a larger truth. I honor and celebrate the beautiful diversity within our denomination and in all spiritual paths. I am in the voting majority, I am not afraid to believe out loud and I use the technological pulpit. I do not see “Absolutest Fundamentalism/Dominionism” and “Presbyterianism” as being compatible positions.
In answer to those that feel the tail is wagging the dog (actions not reflecting the view of those in the pews i.e. 10A and nFOG) I urge you to analyze this chart that shows the vote counts regarding 10A across all presbyteries. As you will see, not only were there 23 presbyteries that switched from no to yes, but the percentages of those changing their vote from no to yes vs. 8B (2009) were as high as 21 percent. That is an extremely significant statistic. It is clear that the predominate views on The Layman are in the voting minority. Were these thousands of presbytery commissioners, arguably seasoned Presbyterians, part of those legions that were “duped into marching in lockstep with this swill?” (Wells Letter 8/15/11)
Our differences, dear brothers and sisters, are not theological but theocratic. The belief that there is only one path to God along with an unwavering (blind) faith of the ultimate truth of everything being contained within one digest of material that we call The Bible (across dozens of centuries, versions and changes) vs. the acknowledgement that each of us have inherited the right and duty to seek and to know God in our own way to God’s ultimate glory. We are all “holy” by definition as Children of God. It is up to us how we co-creatively participate with God as such while here on earth. I celebrate your path and your passion. Why will you not give us the same consideration without resorting to words such as “apostasy,” “blasphemy” and “heresy?” Perhaps it is your own fear based thinking biting back. As for me, as I come into alignment with my higher purpose on earth (co-create the spiritual evolution of man and unify mankind as a physical manifestation of God) and seek to know and touch the Christ within me, the beliefs of those that choose a different path are simply none of my business.
Our recently retired pastor, while serving on the Peace, Unity and Purity committee tells the story of how he believed going in that the word “Reformed” would be fairly well understood and homogeneous across the committee. After hours of discussion, only one idea was unanimously agreed upon. Just one. Please keep this in mind when you are throwing around phrases such as “Reformed” bodies, churches or groups. We Christians are not of one mind and thank God for that! It is our diversity of belief, path and function that forms the foundation for spiritual growth, evolution and re-connection with God! Our diversity is our ultimate strength.
Finally I would say to all those that agree with the Well’s statement the same thing I said to one of our own congregation members who stated similar opinions. Please find peace within yourself, align completely and unabashedly with those of similar mind to yourself. Seek God and align with all of your heart. If you find yourself in the voting minority and cannot honor and celebrate the paths of others while continuing to respectfully dialog with those you disagree with, please feel free to leave, the exit is clearly marked. I would suggest to Well’s that what is being held back by those of his thinking is not “the inevitable tidal wave of socialist-fueled deprivation” but the inevitable tidal wave of God’s love and the unification of all mankind as we seek to foster Christ’s return within every being thus allowing God to experience Creation through our own eyes.
Marston M. Myers, elder Discovery Bay, Calif
Life, death and reframing
Posted Monday, August 22, 2011
I write to respond to the forthright comments on my letter of August 5 from Rev. Bill Pawson (Aug. 8), Eric Wells (Aug. 9), John McWilliams (Aug. 12) and Joe Duffus (Aug. 12).
I share with Rev. Bill Pawson and The Layman a sense of the profundity of Deuteronomy 30:19, “I have set before you live and death, blessing and curse. Choose life …”
It is the verse that came to my mind during a debate within my presbytery in early 2009 over Amendment 08B, another revision of G-6.0106b.
I remember clearly an elder being called to the microphone for his 2-minute speech. He began by talking about his son – who had been a child of Sunday school and the church youth group. In college, his son came out as gay to him and his wife. This experience drove the elder to read all he could lay his hands on – including Scripture. The elder came to the conclusion that God loved his son. For him it followed that he should also continue to love and support his son. His son is now happy in the profession of his choice and in a long term, committed relationship but, unfortunately, does not feel welcome in the PCUSA. This elder asked that we vote for 08B.
The very next speaker in this debate was an elder from another church who also introduced himself as the father of a gay son. However, his story was a very different one. When his son came out to him as gay, this elder shunned him as an abomination. Separated from his family and church – the ones meant to love him the most – his son died of AIDS. This elder asked that we vote against 08B.
So, I ask, who was choosing life and who was choosing death?
I understand that many Layman readers make a distinction between being gay and same-sex love in the way Wells insists, “Abominations are actions, not people.” What I want us all to understand is that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people do not make that distinction, precisely because we know that being and doing are not bifurcated along such easy lines in real human lives.
It is no more reasonable to expect celibacy of LGBT people as it is of straight people (Paul is clear that celibacy is a gift). I can join McWilliams in fearing for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people as they seek out partners, but probably not for the same reasons.
Getting back to the story I just shared, when family and church shun and abandon their own, they remove the structures that teach and support the making of good moral choices. Not in the least is the value of faithful love and commitment to one person in marriage. Without a guiding hand for lesbian, gay bisexual and transgender people, how can we be surprised that poor choices are made or trouble comes?
Among all the LGBT people I know, the only two who have experienced the kind of thing I guess McWilliams is concerned about were both deeply closeted pastors. Their conservative Christian faith taught them that they were sinful; they acted in a sinful, guilty fashion; they both placed themselves in very dangerous situations and suffered grave physical harm. One killed himself, being, as I see it, more willing to face God with Jesus at his side than face his presbytery after impending public outing. If the church had encouraged good, safe moral choices that allowed them to be in the church as who they were before God, the outcomes could have been very different.
What is choosing life and what is choosing death?
I choose life, and life in the church is a constant reframing by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Jesus was anathema to the religious leaders of his time because He reframed Himself — not the Book — to be God’s Word. Peter and Paul reframed the boundaries of the faithful by including Gentiles who were considered abominations. I trust we can agree on that reframing being a central theme of both Acts and Romans (and I trust we agree that way more needs to be said among us about the meaning of “abomination”).
Wells asks, “What laws of the Father did Christ ever side step?” and two immediately come to mind: first, Jesus’ violation of the commandment to keep the Sabbath day (Mt 12:1-14, Mk 2:23-28, Mk 3:1-6, Lk 6:1-11) and second, His violation of the fifth commandment when He refused to see His mother (Mt 12:46-50, Mk 3:31-35, Lk 8:19-21). We can perhaps agree that Jesus violated the interpretation of these laws by the leaders of His day rather than the law of God. I ask you to prayerfully consider that this is exactly what lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender followers of Jesus are doing as well.
In closing, I am grateful that Joe Duffus finds common ground with me in the Bible, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. And I agree with him that the crucial question G-2.0104 places before the PCUSA is what it really means to submit joyfully to the lordship of Jesus Christ. I am glad the church — with the full participation of our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender brothers and sisters — is focusing on this heart of Christian faith.
Reverend Janet Edwards, co-moderator More Light Presbyterians
‘Protection’ is not the answer. Repentance is.
Posted Monday, August 22, 2011
I admit I am unqualified to comment on scientific studies on homoerotic practice, but I do want to comment on the following:
“… McWilliams’ claim does a disservice to straight youth who may misunderstand this as a license to engage in risky sexual behavior on the assumption that being straight somehow acts as a protection from disease. Viruses and disease do not know or care about sexual preference. Unprotected sex is unprotected sex whether gay or straight and our young people deserve to have facts rather than myths when faced with important decisions about their sexual lives.” [Reverend Dr. Robert Wm Lowry’s letter to the editor, posted Aug. 15]
Historically, the only certain way to avoid [sexually transmitted] viruses and disease was fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness. I believe that even today these two options still remain the only certain way to avoid STDs.
The AIDS/HIV pandemic in Africa is a great tragedy, but contrary to the scientific community’s position, we do have a cure for the pandemic within our means at the present time: fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness [and don’t use drugs].
“Protection” is not the answer. Repentance is.
Jake Horner
Pray for the Fellowship Conference in Minneapolis
Posted Monday, August 15, 2011
This is a pivotal time for followers of the Lord Jesus Christ. Everyone should take at least 10 minutes each day to pray for the Fellowship Conference in Minneapolis. The course that they decide upon will determine the fate of many great evangelical churches that happen to be affiliated with the Presbyterian Church (USA). It may also influence the future of many Presbyterian related colleges and seminaries, which represent a large segment of the evangelical infrastructure in this country.
Many of our great evangelical churches are in progressive presbyteries. They will be on the front line of these issues, and will be impacted by decisions that have taken place in a short period of time. There are several solutions, and several roads to decide upon. Barring selection of other alternatives, at the very least, we need to walk away from this conference with a commitment to denominational reorganization, including non-geographic presbyteries, which exist to uphold clear theological standards. If we do nothing, the evangelical churches in progressive presbyteries will be beaten down and their selections of successor clergy will be influenced by their progressive presbyteries.
Then there are the progressive churches in evangelical presbyteries who will call same-sex pastors, have them rejected, and then litigate the issue before the PJC first on the presbytery level, then on the synod level, and then the on the GA level.
More than ever we need to decide if the PCUSA will have a lasting evangelical presence, that propagates the Good News of Jesus Christ and what He has done for us on the cross, etc. or are we a Unitarian movement that does good works and has little to offer in terms of eternal salvation and reconciliation with God the Father through the Lord Jesus Christ. We need to decide who we are, reflect on what the Lord Jesus Christ has done for us, and what our response should be in following Him.
No one course of action will be easy but it starts with the first step.
John Almquist St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, Newport Beach, Calif.
Office of Public Witness apparently only represents the views of Louisville
Posted Monday, August 15, 2011
I have never known the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s Office of Public Witness (formerly known as the PCUSA Washington Office) to take a position on public matters with which I agreed. I doubt that the Office of Public Witness represents the views of most of the people in the pews. It certainly has never represented my views. It apparently only represents the views of Louisville.
Moreover, it does not necessarily represent the views of other Presbyterian bodies, such as the PCA, the EPC, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, or many other Presbyterian and Reformed groups.
I took the step last week of writing to my Congressional representatives to inform them that the Office of Public Witness did not represent my views. If one feels the same way as I do, perhaps one should write to one’s Congressional representatives and disavow representation by the Office of Public Witness.
George Hill, member First Presbyterian Church of Baton Rouge, Port Allen, La.