Posted Friday, March 30, 2012
This article is another example of the PCUSA leadership being out of touch with reality in attempting to “trash” the Ryan proposed budget. This is the only valid attempt in Congress to slow down the reckless government spending that is leading the USA to being another “Greece” financial disaster. The PCUSA leadership proposes further increases in the out of control federal spending and projection. It appears the PCUSA is becoming another arm of the Democratic Party and its financial foolery.
George Uthlaut
‘What is the responsibility of the Church within society?’
Posted Friday, March 30, 2012
One writer, in defense of the PCUSA’s opposition to the Paul Ryan budget, questioned the belief that the welfare state is enervating.
First, we must understand that America was never founded upon state control. It was founded upon individual rights and responsibilities.
Second, if we merely look at recent generations we see a growing loss of the concept of personal responsibility. The current sexual license is a glaring example, but we see it in the workplace and across every aspect of our culture as well. Why else do people sue at the drop of a hat over such things as spilling hot coffee in their lap while driving their car?
Finally, we also see a significant cultural divide. Though even the evangelical church is suffering from our cultural decline, we see the contrast between the Tea Party activists, who are orderly and respectful in their methods and largely composed of God-fearing people and the Occupy group who consistently behave as a hate-filled, scofflaw rabble.
Which one supports the welfare state? Shouldn’t this provide us a clue?
But the question is: What is the responsibility of the Church within society? Or, more accurately, what are the Church’s responsibilities in the societies within which it exists. For the Church, capital C, is the true body of Christ. It is not the visible churches and congregations we see. It is those who know God, who are indwelt of the Holy Spirit, and who follow their Savior’s call to “work while it is still day.”
What “work” is that? It is reaching the lost for Jesus. It is lifting up Jesus before the world. This is the very first duty of the Church.
Is it not also the duty of the Church to point out apostasy in churches?
So, where in that does the question of supporting or opposing a Federal government budget reside?
I am not at all opposed to believers in their societies working toward just and fair government. We have seen that the current administration is completely hostile to the Christian conscience in the recent abortion and abortion pill mandate. This, certainly, is something believers must oppose.
The PCUSA has been shown to consistently oppose Israel, to support abortion, to bless homosexuality, to eliminate any standard for chastity. So, is it at all surprising that it would pay such attention to opposing this attempt by a person of conscience and reason, Paul Ryan, to bring the runaway train wreck that is our current Federal (and state and local) spending into check?
Jesus said “you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” But this is grossly misquoted by those who have never known Him. He refers, of course, to knowing Himself, to salvation, to knowledge in the Spirit, not in the flesh or in fleshly (carnal) or worldly pursuits, though knowing Him certainly should bring wisdom toward this world. As He said “be wise as a serpent but harmless as a dove.”
God’s truth is anathema to those who oppose Him. And these, Scripture advises us, comprise the vast majority of this world, since we know the “path is narrow and few will find it!” Therefore, if we are not to be “of this world,” will not our stand on most issues be at odds with the culture around us?
The Church needs first to attend to the call of Christ. But does it not also have a duty to each culture in which it lives? Without a sound fiscal policy, a nation will fail. And this failure will bring about chaos. Is this not the “night in which no man can work?”
The Church cannot fulfill its call in the midst of utter chaos, so it is right for it to support governmental policies that will both permit freedom of the expression of faith and a foundation that is based on sound moral and fiscal principles. The current administration, indeed, public education, local and state governments, seem instead to increasingly be promoting the very opposite of this, insisting that God be completely pushed out of all public life, while defending immorality and irresponsibility.
As to any question of the thoughts of Ayn Rand, yes, she was an atheist. And yes, she had a philosophy that had significant problems. At the same time she was an advocate for the individual, staunchly against all forms of coercion, for absolute truth and for responsibility. She had much to offer and much to question. Don’t we all? It was the writings of Rand that helped lead me to Jesus because of both what was right and what was flawed in her views. She was hardly without “redeeming value” as, I’m afraid, is the current, godless, PCUSA church.
The charge that the church should be ashamed for asking the government to do its job is entirely valid, however. This work is being done by Catholic charities, the Salvation Army and many others and will be forced to end because of the administration’s mandate that these organizations comply with policies that are unconscionable. This, too, is where the Church must become involved as strenuously as it is able. Paul Hubert
Shame on any church that expects the government to do what it should be doing
Posted Thursday, March 29, 2012
In response to the article detailing the ridiculous response of this denomination’s comments on Paul Ryan’s budget, I would say: Are you people nuts, or what? Let’s see … Our fearless president, one-time community organizer and college professor Barack H. Obama has so far presented two budgets that even his own party rejected and his own party, the party in control, hasn’t bothered presenting a budget in three years. Three years! Can you imagine the irresponsibility of refusing to author and pass a budget for three years? So we have a failed president in over his head who makes up budgets so laughable nobody takes them (or him) seriously and we have a left wing party in charge of two thirds of the government so out of touch with reality they won’t present a budget they’d have to answer to their constituents for. What an embarrassing situation the leaders of this great Republic have found themselves in: They’ve squandered their stewardship of what was once the most prosperous, robust economy in the world to pander to people such as the wacky leaders of the PCUSA.
There is nothing compassionate or godly about the welfare state. There is nothing glorifying to God about a government spending trillions of dollars it doesn’t have to prop up failed social welfare programs that seek to keep people in poverty and dependence. Does anybody in the PCUSA understand that there is no more money? That the top 1 percent, who pay almost all the taxes, are tapped out? They surely must, as obsessed with money as they are.
Note to our religious leaders: Forced compassion in the form of confiscatory taxation and regulatory fees is NOT compassion. If the PCUSA is so concerned about the poor and needy, let them get off the dime and do something about it! As I read the New Testament, this is the job of the church in the first place. Shame on any church that expects the government to do what they themselves are supposed to be doing.
Honestly, it’s hard to believe that the leaders of the PCUSA are this out to lunch. Or maybe it isn’t. Dr. Mike Porter, pastor Norton Presbyterian Church, Norton Va.
The elements of the so-called ‘Faithful Budget’ initiative are foolish
Posted Thursday, March 29, 2012
Once again, PCUSA seeks to enter a domain in which it has no business and supports opinions which most likely do not represent the view of a majority of its members. Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-WI) is one of only a few responsible politicians in Washington, D.C. He has tried heroically to get Congress to adopt a budget that will save our country from the fiscal foolishness of the current administration.
The elements of the so-called “Faithful Budget” initiative are foolish, naive, impractical and simply without merit. It would appear that the leaders of PCUSA are determined to erode what little authority they have left and to alienate members who remain in the denomination.
Claude Lumpkin Burlington, N.C.
For once the PCUSA has got it right
Posted Thursday, March 29, 2012
For once the PCUSA has got it right in rejecting the Paul Ryan/Ayn Rand inspired budget.
The Ryan budget is intended to end all collective action to help our neighbors through appropriate and needed government programs to meet the changing demographic requirements of these United States.
“United States.” States United. A people with a common mission, and goal who are all in the same boat together.
The Ryan budget would transform Americans into a collective of floating corks on the ocean without a voice open to the clenches of any capricious hungry corporate shark swimming by.
Your article quotes Mark Tooley, from the Institute on Religion and Democracy who frets about an “unredeemable debt, crippling taxes, bankrupting entitlement programs, an enervating Welfare State, and crippling regulations.”
Wait a minute. First let’s talk about our debt issue. It is a problem in part because the Republicans got us into two wars on a credit card with the Chinese, and lowered taxes. Countries at war increase taxes and float bonds. At least responsible countries do that. Where was Tooley and his group when the Republican VP Cheney, declared “deficits aren’t a bad thing?”
The selective amnesia of Tooley continues on the issue of taxes. As a percentage of GDP, taxes are at their lowest point in 50 years! The government is starved for revenue with tax breaks to the so-called “job creators” (who create lots a jobs in India and China) rampant. Sure, our corporate taxes are the highest on the planet, but truth is nobody pays them. GE for example, had $14 billion in profit this past year, didn’t pay a dime, and even got over $2 billion back from the government in credits. Now GE, Apple, Google among others want to pay only 5 percent tax on repatriating off-shore profits.
The waitress in Milwaukee, who pays 25 percent of her income in tax would like that kind of deal too, but she doesn’t have lobbyists in Washington. She is just a cork after-all floating on the ocean.
Bankrupting “entitlement programs.” There’s another great label used to suggest things like say, Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, food stamps and other modest social programs when compared to every other responsible industrialized country are just too expensive. There ain’t no money honey, but there is no end in sight to corporate welfare, or a military industrial complex that supports 11 Nimitz carrier groups, another 20 smaller carriers, and has over 8 thousand nukes to hurl at anybody who bugs us. And besides, with a prison incarceration rate higher than even the Soviet Union during Stalin’s day can take care of all those malcontents.
“An enervating welfare state” …. enervating to whom? What Tooley and his gang of think-alikes need to do is get a passport and see the world. Maybe start with Germany, which is the world’s largest exporter. It’s one of them “European Socialist” countries where wages are higher, with hi-tech, high-value goods and services along with splendid health-care for all that doesn’t burden employers directly, and a tax code without a gazillion loop-holes, and oh yes …. riddled with them stinkin’ unions too.
And finally, or almost finally, let’s talk about “crippling regulations.” There’s a cry in the dark alright. So which regulations are crippling? Maybe the ones that say Wall Street can’t suck and blow at the same time when selling products to customers the banksters know are toxic? Or maybe, we should get rid of food inspection, and the next time an outbreak of poisoning occurs, we’ll just watch the bodies pile-up as industry regulates itself. Or perhaps we should put Tooley on airplanes that are never inspected for safety?
Really, Tooley’s simple-minded blanket statements are perverse.
The Ryan budget is evil. It is based on Ayn Rand’s doctrine of “take,” which Tooley and so many mis-guided pseudo-Christians who haven’t read the book of James or certainly understood it embrace in ignorance.
If you want to see what Ayn Rand, is all about, go to YouTube, and watch an interview she did with a young Mike Wallace, where she attacks faith of any kind, decries mercy and caring saying her doctrine is the “new morality” that replaces Christian actions and thoughts that have resonated in public policy.
Folks, Tooley and those of his ilk have to make a choice. They have to choose to spend eternity with Jesus or Ayn Rand. But they can’t do both.
Richard Fallis
Evangelicals and theological liberals are worlds apart in defining ‘divinely inspired’
Posted Thursday, March 29, 2012
In her March 28 letter, Rev. Dr. Anne-Marie Hislop was disingenuous when she wrote, “Many of us (theological liberals) believe a lot of what readers of The Layman believe.” As an example, she wrote, “I believe that (Scripture) is divinely inspired.” On the surface, it would seem that this would be a point on which evangelicals and theological liberals agree. But in reality, the only thing they have in common on this point is the phrasing. Evangelicals and theological liberals are worlds apart in their understanding on what “divinely inspired” means.
In matters pertaining to faith, evangelicals search the text of Scripture for meaning. We read the Old Testament prophets from Moses to Malachi proclaiming, “Thus says the LORD.” We read the Lord Jesus, who said, “Scripture cannot be broken,” (Jn. 10.35) and, “Everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” (Lk. 24.44; cf. Mt. 26.54, Mk. 14.49, Lk. 4.21, 22.37, Jn. 13.18, 17.12) Indeed, He 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. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt. 5.17-19)
And we read Paul, who wrote, “The sacred writings…are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” (II Tim. 3.15-17) Likewise, we read Peter, who wrote, “We have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (II Pet. 1.19-21)
And more generally, we read that Jesus and the Apostles recognize the Old Testament Scriptures to be the Word of God, as evidenced by the way they quoted and interpreted the texts. And if it be objected that in the Sermon on the Mount that the Lord Jesus quibbled with the Old Testament Scriptures, it must be recognized that all of His statements in Matthew 5.21-48 must be read in light of His prefatory statement in Matthew 5.17-20. Moreover, He invested His apostles with the authority to bind the Christian conscience to their words (Mt. 16.18-19, Jn. 20.23), which would be His revelation to them by the Holy Spirit (Jn. 14.16-17,26, 16.7-15). Likewise, the apostles recognized their own words and teachings as the Word of God (e.g., I Thess. 2.13, II Pet. 3.16).
From this, we deduce that inasmuch as God is omnipotent, all-wise, and absolutely truthful, and that Scripture proceeds from Him alone, being delivered by His anointed servants, the prophets and apostles, it therefore follows that the Scripture does not want for knowledge, wisdom, or veracity, and is invested with His authority to bind our consciences to the message of its text.
But theological liberals notoriously refuse to be bound by the text of Scripture. As Douglas Ottati wrote, “Liberal Presbyterians…try to retrieve, restate, rethink, and revise traditional theologies and beliefs in the face of contemporary knowledge and realities. … And they do so without acknowledging any single, central, and allegedly infallible institutional authority.” (Theology for Liberal Presbyterians and Other Endangered Species, p. viii) And neither are they content to search the text of Scripture alone for the meaning of Scriptural doctrine. Again to quote Ottati, “What do we mean today by traditional words such as creation, sin, grace, and salvation?” (Ibid., p. x, emphasis added) Note here the anthropocentricity that undergirds all theologically liberal thought: It is not what the eternal, immutable God means by these doctrines that is important to them, it is only what theological liberals mean in the contemporary context that has ultimate meaning for them.
When a theological liberal says, “I believe that Scripture is divinely inspired,” the inspiration of which he or she is speaking is the inspiration of the artist. It is akin to the inspiration of a majestic mountain to a painter—but what the painter produces is his or her own interpretation of the mountain; it is not as if the mountain has infallibly delivered itself through the painter’s hand to the canvas. One may look upon the painting and contemplate the mountain, as the painting bears witness to the mountain. But the painting is not the infallible word of the mountain.
Likewise, it is with the Bible. As they have written,
The Holy Spirit bears unique and authoritative witness (to Jesus Christ, the Word of God incarnate) through the Holy Scriptures, which are to be received and obeyed as the Word of God written. The Scriptures are not a witness among others, but the witness without parallel. The church has received the books of the Old and New Testaments as prophetic and apostolic testimony in which it hears the Word of God and by which its faith and obedience are nourished and regulated. …
The Bible is to be interpreted in the light of its witness to God’s work of reconciliation in Christ. The Scriptures, given under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, 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 church, therefore, has an obligation to approach the scriptures with literary and historical understanding. (Confession of 1967 §9.27, §9.29)
Do not miss the import of what theological liberalism is here saying: The Scriptures themselves are not the Word of God in the sense that they carry His authority to bind our consciences. They are primarily a witness to Jesus Christ, just as the painting is a witness to the mountain. Their authority is not the binding authority of the king, but the authority of the expert witness in court, who could be wrong. Their text does not deliver the authoritative message of the king as “men (who) spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit,” but rather they deliver the message of men who were trying to make the best sense they could of the things they witnessed as they meditated upon God and the Word of God, which is Jesus Christ. Thus divested of the mythos of divine binding authority, the Scriptures are reduced to human literature and history and are therefore subject to the authority of literary and historical scholars, both religious and secular. And what is more, they have no more binding authority than the holy books of other world religions. Thus, Christianity is no more valid a way of knowing God than Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, New Age Spirituality, or any other world religion.
And here it is that Christianity and Theological Liberalism part company. Theological liberals are like the men of Athens, who were “very religious” and worshiped a god that they did not know. They look at Scripture without spiritual discernment and see “an image formed by the art and imagination of man.” (Acts 17.22-23,29) This mindset leads to a different christ than the Christ of Scripture, to a christ that genuine Christians recognize as false. The christ of theological liberalism is content to sit alongside the pantheon of the gods of other world religions, but the Christ revealed in Scripture is not. The Christ of Scripture said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (Jn. 14.6) But theological liberalism says,
It is unthinkable, in view of the parables and aphorisms, that Jesus said many of the things he is reported to have said. He certainly did not make claims for himself. To have done so would have contradicted his fundamental disdain for arrogance and hypocrisy and run counter to his rhetorical strategies, such as the reversal of roles so common in his parables. Sayings like those we find in the Fourth Gospel could not have originated with Jesus. (Robert W. Funk, Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millennium, pp. 162-163)
In other words, theological liberalism has weighed the Biblical Jesus in the balance of their scales and found Him wanting. And so they reject Him, keeping only the parts of Him from the picture that Scripture paints of Him that accord with their preconceived religious philosophy, and they proceed to reconstruct their own christ.
These are not “subtle differences in perspective or shades of belief,” as Dr. Hislop would have us believe, and it is disingenuous to treat them as such. These are two completely different religions built upon two completely different worldviews, one theocentric and the other anthropocentric. There is, and can be, no fellowship between them, for they do not worship the same Christ.
Theological liberals will not abandon their religious philosophy that has taken them far from the Biblical Jesus, for they are convinced of the truth of their philosophy as possessing binding authority over the Scriptures, and they are convinced that the christ that their religious philosophy allows is the genuine Christ of Scripture and are most unwilling to accept the rebuke of those who believe otherwise. They believe the Holy Spirit is leading them to greater cultural accommodation in order to be more relevant to the surrounding culture. But they mistake the spirit of the age for the Holy Spirit of God, and the world (or the culture) in its wisdom does not know God (I Cor. 1.18-25). And so, theological liberalism’s progress toward cultural accommodation is the progress of lemmings toward oblivion. This is a world of mists and shadows that will pass away when Christ returns, and those who cling to its ways until the end will likewise perish with it.
Conversely, Biblical Christians will not abandon the truth of Scripture, for the Scripture in its entirety bears witness to Jesus Christ. Its words are the words of God and not of men. And if we do not believe the words of Scripture, how will we believe Jesus’s words (Jn. 5.46-47)? To dissect Scripture as theological liberals do is to dissect Christ, for Christ, as the Word of God incarnate, cannot be divorced from the Bible, as the Word of God written—all Scripture must be fulfilled in Him. Scripture bears witness that Christ is the only way, and as such, it is God speaking through the Scriptures that tells us that. It is not as if John were saying, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to God, but I could be wrong, because I am speaking this on my own recognizance and not on the authority of God.” It is the binding authority of God that authenticates Scripture, for Scripture, as Calvin wrote, “has proceeded from (God) alone, and has nothing belonging to man mixed with it.” (Commentary on II Tim. 3.16)
“Now therefore fear the LORD and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. And if it is evil in your sight to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the (theological liberals) in whose land you now dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” (Josh. 24.14-15)
Loren Golden Overland Park, Kan.
Many liberals believe a lot of what Layman readers believe
Posted Wednesday, March 28, 2012
In his letter, Michael Humphreys quotes Professor Gench of Union Seminary as saying, “I do not believe that the Bible was divinely dictated or faxed from heaven but rather it is every bit as fully human as was Jesus Himself.”
Humphreys then goes on with his own interpretation, “For those who might not quite understand what she was saying here, this is religious doublespeak. It is really series of code words for ‘The Bible is not divinely inspired and Jesus was just a good man, not the Son of God who pre-existed with the Father before the Incarnation, was born of a virgin, died and rose again.’”
He makes a common mistake. For a liberal, to say that the Bible is not dictated by God is not the same thing as saying that it is not divinely inspired. Nor is it a denial of the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, the crucifixion and the resurrection. I am a liberal, who does not understand Scripture to be inerrant. However, I believe that it is divinely inspired and, as the Confession of 1967 says, written down by humans. I know no liberal clergy or regular church participant who would say that Jesus “was just a good man.” If I thought that, why would I dedicate my life to Him, to preaching His Gospel, and to working for His mission in the world?
It is easy, I suppose, to tar and feather all who do not agree with your perspective as being ridiculously empty of belief and 100 percent unfaithful. While one can always find some liberals on the fringe, maybe even some who express such empty belief, many of us believe a lot of what readers of The Layman believe. There may be subtle differences in perspective or shades of belief. I may understand the crucifixion slightly differently than your typical reader, but I can still say with integrity that Jesus died for our sins, that Jesus is my Lord and Savior, and that Jesus was God incarnate.
Jesus Christ is my heart and, yes, I am a liberal. Rev. Dr. Anne-Marie Hislop Chicago, Ill., USA
Why doesn’t the PCUSA merge with the Unitarian Universalist Church?
Posted Wednesday, March 28, 2012
I’ve read Mike Humphreys’ long and eloquent open letter about the state of the PCUSA, and I applaud it. He used the analogy of the airplane pilot flying the aircraft and its passengers into the ground. Another analogy I’ve thought about is the Titanic. The 100 anniversary of its sinking is rapidly coming upon us. It is said that the officer on deck at the time made a fatal error by stopping all engines, thus decreasing the flow of water around the rudder and making the collision with the iceberg inevitable.
There is one important difference: the passengers aboard the Titanic believed in icebergs; PCUSA loyalists don’t believe in hell. Humphreys asked if it’s likely that Harry Emerson Fosdick made it to heaven. I remember reading a book by C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce, in which people in hell got on a bus that took them to heaven. When they got there, they were unhappy because they didn’t fit in, and wanted to go back. I think that probably would accurately describe Fosdick and his modern day disciples.
This morning in chapel I heard the Malawian preacher tell the following story. A preacher came to visit a home where two young boys lived. The first boy saw the preacher coming, and ran away and hid. The preacher arrived at the home and saw the other boy. He asked the boy, “Where is God?” The boy, confused, said nothing. The preacher asked a second time, “Where is God?” This time the boy ran out and found the first boy. He said, “Brother, we are in trouble. God is missing, and they think we are responsible.” So it is with the leaders of the PCUSA. God is missing from their churches, and they are responsible.
I’m left with one question: Why doesn’t the PCUSA go ahead and merge with the Unitarian Universalist Church? I would think they would be very compatible. Larry Brown African Bible College, Lilongwe, Malawi
Good for presbytery and churches that are taking a stand
Posted Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Reading both the report of the Synod of the Trinity action/determination and Parker T. Williamson’s commentary, my immediate reaction is: “Good!”
Good for Pittsburgh in taking a stand that affirms the historic principle of the particular church speaking its conscience to the larger denomination. Good for all of those churches who have refused to continue to fund an out of control bureaucracy that is “deaf, dumb and blind” or simply living in denial. If more churches would refuse to “feed the beast,” perhaps our headlong slide into apostasy might be halted. I wonder how many other presbyteries are in similar straights.
Further thought — if Pittsburgh knuckles under and wastes $1,083,000 in such a manner, they will deserve the penalty which follows. That penalty might include a death spiral of increased financial withholding, elimination of more bureaucratic waste and even a hastened de facto gracious separation. Really, if the presbytery(ies) must send more and more to Louisville, how will they fund their numerous law suits against dissident congregations?
Rev. Jim Yearsley Tampa
What will presbyteries that have been with-holding per capita do?
Posted Tuesday, March 27, 2012
This is really a question not a comment. Now that a PJC has ruled on presbyteries being required to remit per capita … What are those presbyteries that have not been in compliance going to do? I know that there is some possibility of declaring that they are unable to pay, but what about those who might be with-holding out of protest? Just wondering.
Bill Little Mt Vernon Community Presbyterian Church, McKeesport, Pa.
The plain, precise and clear meaning of something is utterly cast aside
Posted Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Let’s see. “… in no case shall the authority of the session to direct its benevolences [if, when, where, and/or how much in its parts or particulars] be compromised.” Yet, synod (of the Trinity) has ruled, 10-0, presbyteries must remit per-capita funds regardless of the decision of a session to withhold. Am I missing something? The absolutes therein stack up like cord wood — “in no case,” “authority of the session,” “shall,” “be compromised.” Yet, presbytery may say, “Session decision and will be damned. We’ll send the proper amount on in their name anyway.” In case it’s not obvious, in these instances presbyteries are acting on behalf of sessions, but antithetically to their decisions and will.
Once again the plain, precise and clear meaning of something is utterly cast aside in favor of what the ecclesiastical hierarchy wants. nFOG was sold in part because it was evidence of a new ethos of gracious oversight rather than dictate against the people from above.
Rev. Steven L. Seng, pastor First Wyoming United Presbyterian Church, Torrington, WY
An open letter to those still in the PCUSA who love Jesus
and want to follow Him in faithfulness with a whole heart
Posted Tuesday, March 27, 2012
For many years we raised sheep on our farm. As a shepherd, I loved my flock. As a follower of the Good Shepherd, my heart is deeply grieved for the greater flock of God that I see being bruised, led astray and scattered – as depicted in Ezekiel 34.
I have been mulling over this letter for some months; and I feel compelled to submit it after watching an on-line CNN interview with the openly-partnered, homosexual minister Scott Anderson, recently ordained in the PCUSA. I hope this letter will resonate with some who still do not recognize the seriousness of this milestone, or have simply not made a decision. I recognize that this letter is not to the many, but to the few. I am also deeply concerned about the lambs of God’s flock who may not understand all that’s going on.
I do not intend to be harsh, nor do I want to sound mean, but its time for some straightforward talk. If this helps only one church or one person to make the decision to “come out from among them,” then it is worth the effort and the likely negative personal consequences I expect to be hurled my way.
I graduated from a Presbyterian college with the intent to enter the ministry. I was under the care of my local presbytery. I applied to and was accepted into a Presbyterian seminary. I shall always love the church in which I was raised and in which my family and I, and my wife and her family, all came to faith in Christ. In obedience to Him, we became a part of the millions who have left the Presbyterian Church in recent years. I am a brother in Christ to those who believe in His name and show themselves to be His disciples by doing the will of the Father as revealed in the Bible.
Whether we are speaking of a bullet, an artillery shell, or an airplane, it is possible to track and predict the trajectory and impact point of an object moving through space by collecting and plotting the data points along it’s path.
For many years now – decades really – we have been plotting data points along the path the PCUSA has chosen. Carmen Fowler LaBerge has done a masterful job in laying out the history of the PCUSA in her February article “How we got ‘here’.” It is a monumental effort worthy of detailed study by individuals, sessions and congregations. I encourage you to print it, and hand it out to your members. It’s that important!
Now we have the ordination of Anderson (and other openly gay officers) as well as examples of Presbyterian ministers openly performing same-sex marriages and the extension of benefits to the same-sex partners of church employees by the Board of Pensions. After plotting these new data points, if the denomination were an aircraft, I would note its trajectory and state that it is moving in a “dangerous downward vector.”
Anderson’s ordination was a watershed. It marks the official introduction and open acceptance of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah into the PCUSA, functionally severing that branch from the universal body of Christians whose head is Christ.
Let us be very clear: it is possible now to declare finally that within the PCUSA, the “modernists,” the liberals, the unbelievers and the ecclesiastical atheists (those who worship a god of their own creation) have finally “won” the war for the heart of this once great denomination. She has clearly abandoned her first love.
We must all understand that what we believe governs our actions, and that our choices, personal decisions, and actions all have consequences – and many have eternal consequences.
Do you know the name Harry Emerson Fosdick? He was one of the most gifted, eloquent, and well-known ministers of the first half of the 20th century. He was very well educated (Colgate, Union Theological Seminary), had a keen intellect, and, although a Baptist, from 1918 to 1925 he became minister of First Presbyterian Church in New York City. Later, he was minister at the Riverside Church for many years and taught at Union Theological Seminary.
He was a prolific author – having written more than 40 books, some of which sold in the millions. He wrote a well-known hymn that is still sung today, and had a radio program that was broadcast in the US and abroad for 17 years. He wrote for many popular magazines of his day. He was on Time magazine’s cover in 1925 and 1930. He was possibly one of the best-known religious figures in American life in the first half of the 20th century.
He was a “theological rebel.” He was also one of the foremost liberals and modernists of his era.
While the disagreements between conservatives and liberals had been simmering for some time, Fosdick is credited with starting the open warfare between them in his famous 1922 sermon, Shall the Fundamentalists Win?
This is the war that has now been concluded within the PCUSA with the ordination of unrepentant homosexuals.
I first heard Dr. Fosdick’s name during a Bible study while in college. The Presbyterian minister leading the study told us how, during WWII, he was a soldier in the Pacific. He recounted listening to Dr. Fosdick preach an Easter message carried by the armed forces radio network and hearing him say that the spirit of Jesus lives eternally but “the body of Jesus lies sleeping sweetly somewhere in Palestine.” Here and elsewhere, Dr. Fosdick clearly denied the bodily resurrection of Christ.
Fosdick wrote in a letter to a young man saying: “Too many theories of the atonement assume that by one single high priestly act of self-sacrifice Christ saved the world. No! Dr. Fosdick denied the atonement.
He deemed the idea of the literal second coming of Christ to be absurd.
He once boasted that he had never recited the Apostle’s Creed.
He wrote of himself in his autobiography: “They call me a heretic. Well, I am a heretic if conventional orthodoxy is the standard. I should be ashamed to live in this generation and not be a heretic.” [1]
Dr. Fosdick died in 1969. After his death, Rev. Johan D. Tangelder wrote of him, “The liberal Fosdick tried to have fellowship with a god who was the product of his own intellect. His christ was not the Christ of the Scriptures. His Christianity was a humanism influenced by Christian principles.”
By every standard of the world, Fosdick achieved fame and lived a very successful life. According to many people he might be termed a “good man.”
Perhaps we should ask ourselves, “Where is he now?” Because choices, personal decisions and actions all have consequences, just exactly where is Dr. Fosdick’s eternal abode?
Is he now rejoicing with the writers of the Bible: Moses, David, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, Mark, Luke and the others, when Dr. Fosdick taught for many years against the divine inspiration of Scripture?
Is he in the presence of the saints of the Early Church who laid down their lives over the question of whether Caesar or Jesus was Lord, when he denied the atoning work of Christ?
Is he with Mary, the mother of Jesus, and her other sons, Jesus’ brothers (Acts 1:14b), when he denied and taught against the virgin birth?
Is he in the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ, after denying and preaching against the clear Scriptural witness and Biblical teaching of the bodily resurrection of Christ from the dead?
Should we really believe that a man who taught for years against the essentials of the Christian faith is in heaven?
Or should we understand instead that God meant what He said, that one who denies the truth of Revelation 1:5 – that Jesus is the Firstborn from among the dead – should suffer the eternal judgment of Revelation 22:19?
If the positive side of the Gospel is encapsulated in John 3:16, the other side of the coin is Jesus’ words in John 8:24. Here Jesus states, “… for if you do not believe that I am He [Whom I claim to be — if you do not adhere to, trust in and rely on Me] you will die in your sins.” (Amp.) Harry Emerson Fosdick denied the deity and atoning work of Christ.
If we take at face value the words of Jesus in John 8:24, and if we take at face value the statements of Dr. Fosdick, we must conclude that that he died with his sin unforgiven.
Why is this important? Because the spiritual offspring of Harry Emerson Fosdick – those who wear his spiritual mantle and teach his brand of unbelief and propagate his false doctrines – have taken control of the PCUSA. They teach in seminaries, preach in pulpits and control the machinery of the denomination. Fosdick may have started the war, but his spiritual descendants have now won it.
I am continually astounded that people don’t connect actions with consequences. Please let me give you an example from my professional world. I have been a pilot for many years, first in the military, later an airline pilot. I now fly business jets.
Suppose you were to board a plane bound for Washington Dulles International airport in Virginia. Now suppose the pilot says to himself, “It’s a beautiful, clear day so why don’t we fly down the Potomac River and take the folks to Reagan National airport instead. After all, it’s a gorgeous day to see downtown DC out the windows and Reagan National is closer to the city than landing way out in Virginia. The people will actually appreciate it because they will be closer to downtown.”
Now suppose this pilot were actually to willfully ignore his flight dispatch and his flight plan and do this. Do you think his company might have something to say about it? How about Air Traffic Control? Except for a valid weather divert, do you think the Feds might have something to say about taking his passengers to the wrong airport? How about all the people in the back who unexpectedly arrive at National and whose transportation is at Dulles? What about those making connections at Dulles, how will they feel about the pilot exercising his personal proclivity to do what was right at that moment in his own eyes?
But some others might say, “What’s the big deal? It’s still Washington DC.”
Now suppose while our errant pilot is flying into Reagan National airport, he says, “It’s such a beautiful day, I think I’ll take a short trip out over the city of Washington, and we’ll take a turn over the Capitol and the White House before we land.” In doing so he would violate the permanent restricted area over downtown Washington, the Capitol and the White House. There would be consequences.
Were he to have flown over downtown Washington DC before 9/11/2001, the consequences would have been: the pilot would have been met at the gate by the police and taken into custody. He would have been summarily fired by his airline, and the FAA would have issued an emergency revocation of his Airline Transport Pilot license. Finally, a group of federal prosecutors would have compiled a laundry list of federal regulations the pilot had broken. His trial would have made national news.
Today, in a post 9/11 world, the consequences could well be deadly. If the wayward plane were deemed a threat to the nation’s Capitol or White House by the national command authority, the aircraft would be ordered shot down. Everybody onboard, along with the pilot – who was exercising a capricious whim – would die.
I have never met another pilot stupid enough to even contemplate such a foolish act as the one described above. But I have encountered pastors and teachers – shepherds of the flock of God who willfully flout, ridicule and ignore God’s Word. They lead God’s people astray. They call white black, and black white! And they think there will be no eternal consequence because in their heart of hearts they do not believe in the reality of a personal, holy God.
I have never met a pilot who would hi-jack his own airplane, but I have encountered ministers who hi-jack their congregations and take them to a place they don’t want to go. People walk into a church building expecting to be taught the ways of God and are unexpectedly taken somewhere spiritually they did not intend to go and are taught untruths by false teachers and blind guides. Do you really think there will be no eternal consequence for this?
The penalty for breaking the law of man can be extremely severe and even deadly – think of all the possible outcomes of running a red light. How much more severe are the eternal consequences for the willful and flagrant violation of the law of God in bringing the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah into the Church? Is there no fear of the awesome holiness of God?
Paul said “knowing the terror of the Lord, we persuade men” (2 Corinthians 5:11), and Hebrews tells us, “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (10:31).
Not convinced?
Here’s another real-life example: Occasionally in the United States a pilot (usually in a small airplane) will get lost at night or in bad weather and fly a perfectly good aircraft into the ground or a hillside. It has happened so frequently over the years that this event even has a name: CFIT – “Controlled Flight Into Terrain.” The latest tragic example was this past Thanksgiving (2011) in Arizona.
An experienced pilot landed a high-performance, twin-engine aircraft at night in Phoenix and took aboard three of his children and two other adults. He then departed, and in the black of night flew into a mountain east of Mesa, Arizona, killing all onboard. The pilot may make the mistake but the passengers also suffer the consequences.
Nobody in his right mind does this on purpose. Pilots become lost and disoriented. It almost always happens at night with no horizon, or in bad weather, or both. The pilot has lost his situational awareness and can’t see the ground – it’s pitch black, and he can’t see the horizon – but he hopes he is OK. And the outcome is always permanent.
In the same way spiritually, mankind is lost and flying in darkness. We have no spiritual horizon, and the glitzy lights of Hollywood and the world are a dangerous and deadly illusion. God has given us His word as the true horizon and guide for our lives. His laws are our spiritual “instruments” to keep us safe. If we follow Him diligently and obey His word faithfully, we have His promise that we will land safely. But all of us know someone who has not followed God’s law and their life is shipwrecked by the consequences of sin.
There is no forgiveness in aviation for serious errors. The laws of aerodynamics are unbending. If a pilot makes a mistake, he can recover if he has enough airspeed and altitude. But there are mistakes and errors that are not recoverable and disaster is usually the result.
Because I work in a world of strict aerodynamic laws and aviation parameters, I am always astonished and amazed that people think they can ignore and break God’s greater law and get away with no consequence. In ordaining unrepentant homosexuals, the PCUSA is clearly exceeding the parameters of God’s Word and the boundaries of His law!
I know that “men ought always to pray and not to faint,” however the PCUSA has set its course and it is not going to change for two reasons.
First, the PCUSA has become what it is through the entrenched unbelieving, secular-progressive leadership, which has taken over the denomination. It is what it is because those in charge want it that way. They are not going to change. They believe they know better than God and they know best for the denomination.
As a subset of this first point, there are now generations of PCUSA seminary graduates taught to disbelieve the Scriptures who will continue to run the denomination for years to come.
A classic example of this is The Layman article about Union Seminary Professor of Biblical Interpretation Dr. Frances Taylor Gench who was reported in the article to state that “the Bible is “chocked full of repellant, tyrannical texts of terror for women, slaves, Jews, Native Americans [and] gays,” and can be used as “instruments of oppression.” She went on to say “I do not believe that the Bible was divinely dictated or faxed from heaven but rather it is every bit as fully human as was Jesus Himself,” For those who might not quite understand what she was saying here, this is religious doublespeak. It is really series of code words for “The Bible is not divinely inspired and Jesus was just a good man, not the Son of God who pre-existed with the Father before the Incarnation, was born of a virgin, died and rose again.”
Without doubt, Professor Gench inculcates this same unbelief of the Scriptures in her students. That’s the essence of teaching. Harry Emerson Fosdick would have been very proud.
There is second reason the PCUSA is not going to change. For many, many years there have been multiple prophetic voices within the denomination calling for repentance and a return to Biblical faithfulness. The Layman has been a vital part of this prophetic voice and an important, essential platform.
However, instead of repenting and returning, the denomination has – on the contrary – demonstrated its continued disobedience to and disregard of God’s law.
There is a Biblical principle at work here: When God has spoken repeatedly to a wayward person or a group to repent and to turn back Himself – as He has to the PCUSA – and that group or person will neither listen nor repent – there comes a time when God lets them continue in the path they have chosen.
This is brought out clearly in the prophecy of Hosea when he was crying out to backsliding Judah and Israel. He said “Ephraim is joined to idols. Let him alone” (4:17).
The Lord Jesus Christ states this same precept in Matthew 15:14 when He says of the Pharisees who have seen His miracles, rejected Him and want to kill Him, “Let them alone.” There is an echo of this in Matthew 23:37-38.
Paul expands on this thought in 2 Thessalonians 2:10 when he explains that people perish when they do not receive the love of the truth. In verse eleven he says “For this reason God will send them strong delusion that they should believe the lie” (NKJV).
Please notice that He doesn’t say that they didn’t know the truth. They may have learned the truth in Sunday school, at youth camp, or in seminary. Romans 1 makes clear that ignorance is no excuse. It is because they didn’t love the truth.
And now we have the PCUSA caught in the delusion that homosexuality – which is clearly and expressly forbidden in both the Old and New Testaments – is to be not only an accepted lifestyle but celebrated as a manner of life worthy of the gospel and church leadership. Save for the Bible itself, which is being ignored, there are no constitutional restraints on sexual practices that restrict church membership or ordination.
According to the wording of the PCUSA’s new Form of Government, every “group” must be guaranteed not only membership but representation in leadership. According to the action of the Board of Pensions to extend benefits to same-sex couples, every church must pay for the sin that the denomination as a whole now approves. And if the overtures headed to the General Assembly this summer are any indication of the will of those left in regard to the definition of marriage, the battle for the PCUSA is lost.
In the words of Carmen LaBerge from How we got ‘here’ … “the Presbyterian public witness becomes indistinguishable from a hard left progressive political agenda”…. If they continue in this direction, at some point – except for religious language and ecclesiastical garments – the PCUSA will be no different from any other group that counts Jesus as just a good man, and one of many paths to God.
As I studied Carmen’s article, I was struck by the fact that one of the reasons many churches have remained in the denomination in the past is “the inordinate riches left to the Presbyterian Foundation.”
When I read this I was reminded of the Biblical account in 2 Chronicles 25. Amaziah, King of Judah, hires an army from Israel to go out to battle for him and pays them a hundred talents of silver. But Israel is wicked and apostate and Amaziah is rebuked by a prophet for hiring these men from Israel. The King’s immediate response is, “But what about my hundred talents of silver I’ve already paid?” The prophet replies, “God is able to give you much more than this.”
Here is an important lesson: God is able to supply all of our needs. His resources are infinite and His riches are not diminished. Let the denomination have the money. If they will not walk in righteousness, it will become a curse to them and not a blessing.
As Carmen’s history explains, this war started long before you and I were born but it has been concluded in our day, and frankly we have to recognize that the other side has won. We are not talking about a country club or a civic organization that has made a decision with which we don’t agree but we can live with. We are dealing with a self-affirming part of the Body of Christ that has embraced immorality and defiled its garments. The denomination has set its course and short of God’s direct intervention to bring historic repentance filled revival, it is not going to be changed.
The essence of the Gospel is to love the Lord our God with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength and to love our neighbor in the greatest way possible: bringing to them the good news of the love of Jesus Christ. This is what we all should be doing. You can waste a lot of your life, time and energy trying to reform this denomination that somewhere at the essence of its core has become rotten.
Carmen goes on to say …”We are past the point where issues can be ignored … but remaining blissfully ignorant is no longer an option.” It’s time to make a decision and many churches already have done so.
For those who love the Lord Jesus Christ and want to follow Him with a whole heart, it is time to depart from the PCUSA.
Whether by entire presbytery, by congregation, family or individual, it is time to leave.
Whether immediately or in a process of months, it is time to do more than differentiate, it is time to separate.
“Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said:
“I will dwell in them
And walk among them.
I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.”
Therefore
“Come out from among them
And be separate, says the Lord.
Do not touch what is unclean,
And I will receive you.”
“I will be a Father to you,
And you shall be My sons and daughters,
Says the Lord Almighty.” 2 Corinthians 6:14-17
The God who created the heavens and the earth is fully able to lead you and guide you to the place of safety He wants you to go. Ask Him! Seek Him! He will not fail to lead you.
There are other Reformed denominations. There are faithful churches. There are sheepfolds where the Word of God is taught in faithfulness to the Scriptures and where the shepherds serve as under-shepherds of the Good Shepherd, Jesus Christ alone.
I grant that since God does not leave Himself without a witness, there may be some few who are called to remain in the PCUSA as a prophetic voice for righteousness. If so, you should be very sure of your calling! You should be prepared for grave hardship and continual rejection. You should not be surprised to experience a prophet’s “end,” as described by Jesus in Matthew 23:34. If you don’t know this verse, please look it up; this is very serious business.
But if you don’t have that specific calling – if God is not sending you as an evangelist to the PCUSA or like Jude to snatch some out of the fire – it is time to walk away. If you continue in the PCUSA, how do you not you assent to their embrace of immorality? There is going to be no room for “relief of conscience,” you will be numbered among them.
Back to our airplane metaphor: in an aircraft descending into danger the passengers in the back are stuck. They can’t get out. They are tied to the pilot’s decisions. As the PCUSA continues its downward vector into the spiritual darkness of apostasy what will you do?
Unlike those passengers, you can step out – and you can do it knowing absolutely that the Eternal God is faithful! He will lead you and guide you into a place of safety, and into His marvelous light.
I want to close with the words of C. S. Lewis from Mere Christianity at the end of Book Two. The context is the second coming of Christ, but his words seem so applicable to this season in the PCUSA: “For this time it will be God without disguise; something so overwhelming that it will strike either irresistible love or irresistible horror into every creature. It will be too late then to choose your side. There is no use saying you choose to lie down when it has become impossible to stand up. That will not be the time for choosing: it will be the time when we discover the side we really have chosen, whether we realized it before or not. Now, to-day, this moment, is our chance to choose the right side. God is holding back to give us that chance. It will not last forever. We must take it or leave it.”
The decision is yours. You have to act. Today’s choices and actions have eternal consequences.
If this letter has spoken to you in some way, please feel free to share it with others
Maranatha.
[1] H. E, Fosdick. The Living of These Days. p. 176.
Mike Humphreys Virginia
‘We win souls for Christ by our witness and living what we preach’
Posted Friday, March 23, 2012
Re: Rev. Paul Muresan’s letter to the editor, posted 3/22/12
Amen. Maybe we win members to our congregations through relationships and friendship with the world but we win souls for Christ by our witness and living what we preach. Our churches bought into abortion by being complacent and procrastinating. Now we are accepting homosexuality the same way.
Jesus said he would return for His church. My prayer is “Come quickly Lord Jesus.”
James 4:4: “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.”
George Hook, ex-elder and ex-member in a PCUSA church
God has His people to help keep us on track
Posted Friday, March 23, 2012
I loved this article. So easy to get off track, but God has His people there — as we know Del Tackett has been — to keep us on track. We are destined for the throne, and we need to know that to worship Him we must come outside the city gates (the world) and suffer with Him. We are the joy that was set before Him, so He could endure the cross. He is the joy that was set before me that I might endure the cross.
Barb Ludy
Those who want there to be contradictions in the Scriptures find them
Posted Friday, March 23, 2012
That (The former Rev.) Robert E. McCaslin Jr. M.Div., et al [letter to the editor, posted 3/21/12] is “on our side” is not good and heart-warming news — with friends like these, who needs enemies? Although, in citing a “contradiction” like the fact that both thieves crucified with Christ reviled Him, but one of the thieves later repented (three hours is a long time when you’re “just hanging around”) he does us a service in showing how those who want there to be contradictions in the Scriptures “find” them. I’ll stick with the Solas, thank you; and I’ll decide what company I’ll keep too.
Russ and Carmen Westbrook McKee, Ky.