To lead young students down the wrong road is a serious matter
Posted Friday, January 30, 2009
I just read this article [page 15] in the Presbyterian Layman: “Stacy Johnson throws down the gauntlet and tosses verses he believes are biased.” How does one respond to an article like this in a way that honors God and respects such men as Dr. Stacy Johnson, professor of theology at Princeton Theological Seminary? I am in no way able to understand or comprehend all of the Scriptures. I’m a pastor in a small church in a small town in Indiana.
My heart is broken and my hopes are dashed for the young men and women going to seminary who would expect to have mentors and professors who tremble before God’s Word and feel the weight of taking liberties with Scripture in a way that denigrates the name of our Lord and Savior. More than likely, Professor Johnson has read and prayerfully come to this conclusion after careful study of the Scriptures?
All who have the privilege of sharing and teaching the Scriptures are held by God to a higher standard. I’m sure that I err many times. But to cut a new path and lead young students down the wrong road is a very serious matter indeed. To have such learned men and women teach trivial personal opinions of how to interpret Scripture is a double sin: one that gives Satan a stronghold upon the credibility of Princeton Theological Seminary and a sinful burden upon those teaching God’s Word in such a manner (Matthew 18:5, 6).
Dr. Johnson, I call upon you to seriously reconsider your stance on this vital area of Scripture. I pray for the Holy Spirit to work in both of our lives to lead us to His truth based upon the fundamentals of Biblical interpretation of God’s Word as it applies to our vows before God under the Westminster Confession of Faith. I humbly submit myself to your office of teaching and learning but call you to our mutual ministry of preaching and teaching God’s Word – allowing the Scriptures themselves to interpret Scripture.
I am writing out of love for our God, wishing only to not malign His holy Word, and a respect for a professor of theology who has influence on the souls of many students – may God help us all to seek His face and humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God. Glen Francis, pastor St. Andrew Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Auburn, Ind.
Advice and counsel seemed to be the opinion of one committee member
Posted Friday, January 30, 2009
A very good article on advice and counsel by Jim Berkley. As an overture advocate I discovered that advice and counsel seemed to be the opinion of one member of a committee. Either that or the whole ACC misunderstood a particular decision of the GAPJC. The problem was that commissioners didn’t seem to know that and committee members asked for advice and counsel were offered more opportunities to speak to committee than were overture advocates because commissioners asked for their input more often. Robert Campbell, pastor Tully Memorial Presbyterian Church, Sharon Hill, Pa.
You don’t get West Presbyterian Church
Posted Friday, January 30, 2009
What a bunch of cheap shot artists you are! Usually, I just laugh off the customary prevarications of The Layman, but your gloating spin on the close of West Presbyterian Church seeps below the sewer line of your normal standards.
But then why should I be surprised that you wouldn’t “get” West Presbyterian Church? According to the numbers game that you love to play, the folks at West Presbyterian are wrong-headed losers. Just think of all those years of faithfulness and service proved worthless and nullified by the close of the church! What were they thinking when the congregation intentionally took the risk of making a commitment to their struggling urban neighborhood? Why did they choose such a poor church-growth strategy as to welcome maligned and marginalized people into their fellowship? Who would do a thing like that? James L. Reisner, pastor Westminster Presbyterian Church, Albany, N.Y.
PCUSA is happy President Obama rescinded the restriction on abortion?
Posted Friday, January 30, 2009
Re: The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice article
This article is frightening enough as it stands but increasing abortion opportunities is cause for much concern. The organization states that PCUSA — and others — endorse the policy and are happy President Obama has rescinded the restriction on the practice.
This Presbyterian does not agree and I truly believe that most Presbyterian do not believe in abortion practices or subverting the law; either Christian or civil.
How long must we put up with never-ending rounds of controversy over abortion, gay rights and ordination standards ? Answer, not until the membership in the pews, session members and pastors open their Bibles, their ears, their eyes and hearts to the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ. The leadership has brought us to this point, not the membership. I am advocating the removal of all those in office in Louisville and many presbyteries and replacing them with people that care very little of what the secular man thinks but is very fearful of what the Lord Almighty says and lead accordingly.
Bob Campbell Kingman , Ariz.
Accepting sin as OK diminishes Christ and elevates humans
Posted Friday, January 30, 2009
By the stringent standards Christ applied to the Ten Commandments, we all have broken each of them in our hearts, multiple times. This does not mean that we say “Oh, well!” and continue on.
The law, as Paul points out in Romans, is designed to teach us what sin is. We all do it. After we recognize our sin, we realize the need for a Savior. He wants us to confess our sins and He will be faithful to forgive us.
When we accept any sin as OK, we diminish Christ and elevate ourselves. We all sin and will continue to do so, but we should never embrace our sin and claim God has changed His mind about it. “Be holy for I am holy.” Evan Dowdy Brighton, Colo.
Marriage: ‘It all began with a man and a woman’
Posted Friday, January 30, 2009
I am writing concerning Rev. Janet Edwards’ letter to The Layman concerning “looking for the prohibition in the Bible against the marriage between two men or two women.” A very strong point that she is ignoring is that in the days when the Bible was being written that situation was not an issue.
The very fact of the matter is that when God created Adam and Eve for the purpose of creation it all began with a man and a woman. If God had wanted it any other way, He probably would have done it differently.
Two men or two women still cannot conceive a baby.
Enough said. I rest my case. A.C. Vogel Fairmount, Ga.
Now that the abortion genie has been released, there’s no putting it back in
Posted Friday, January 30, 2009
Lately, The Layman has been posting a lot of material related to the evils of abortion. I asked myself a question: what would happen if Roe vs. Wade got overturned today? A couple of things came to mind.
- Women would simply go to Canada, Mexico or other foreign places for their abortions.
- Duplicating prohibition, abortions would be performed in out-of-the-way places, after dark, maybe by people with little or no medical training.
And so the true tragedy of Roe vs. Wade is that now that the abortion genie has been released from its brass lamp, there can be no putting it back in.
The most effective counter move is to have children or to adopt. If we can’t overturn legalized abortion, we can still affirm life. Larry Brown African Bible College
In 2009, God is still changing hearts
Posted Wednesday, January 21, 2009
On Monday, Martin L. King Jr. Day, Jan. 19, 2009, Charlotte, N.C.’s radio station’s WBT’s Tera Servatius asked has “the dream” been realized? The dream was articulated by the late Martin Luther King, August 28, 1963, amid severe racial agitation and violence.
The summer of 1963 was still a time of de jure racial consciousness in the South and customary practice in the North.
I, a young fair-skinned Negro man, and my light-brown-skinned wife and our rainbow-hued children were living in Burlington, Iowa. The color distinction is important because on that day in 1963, racial identity still played an important legal and social role. A legacy of slavery, a person of more than 1/8 Negro blood was legally a Negro and not entitled to the hopes of the American dream. Later more of that. We were living in a fairly rundown house having just been transferred and moved to Iowa with a very good job. But we were unable to obtain a house commensurate with our income; we had been denied a new home that we could afford by one developer who simply held our loan application (probably once he could see our excellent credit record).
Another developer was forbidden, under threat of local bank loan cutoff, to sell his lovely new construction home to us.
So on the afternoon of August 28, 1963, we were praying for God to come to our aid.
So, what is the status of the dream?
“I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.” — MLK
Much of that has been accomplished although the sin of hatred yet lives in many folks. Colleges, neighborhoods, work places and churches have diversity of tribes of mankind.”I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.” —MLK
It appears that Georgia makes news today because of its athletic teams and commerce, not the racial hatred that still resides in some hearts.
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” —MLK
Barack Obama’s generation was just appearing in 1963. While I disagree with President Elect Obama’s politics, economic approach and social goals; many judged him to be of worthy character outweighing his dark skin.On a personal note, in 1963 one could not have paid me enough to work and live anywhere south of the Mason-Dixon Line. In 1969, I declined a great opportunity in Tennessee. But in 1980, I moved my family into a mostly white neighborhood in Virginia. In 1992, I returned to suburban Virginia, then to Mountain Maryland in 1995 and finally into once notorious Rock Hill, South Carolina in 2007.
Some eight years prior to the summer of 1983, I was escorted out of an Arlington, Va., Howard Johnson restaurant, recognized as a Negro among my Ohio high school white classmates.
Today, I have to identify myself to African American and European Americans, alike, as a Negro man, since the legal requirements of segregation and the social tension have so subsided that racial identity is of lesser importance.
The dream will never be perfectly accomplished just as hate is still strong between all tribes of Adam’s race.
But in 2009, God is still changing hearts and the American social and legal environment permits us to largely live out the love with which He replaced hate. James Logan Rock Hill, S.C.
Membership numbers are inflated by the presbyteries
Posted Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Another reason for declining numbers of voting commissioners may be that membership numbers are inflated by the presbyteries. The Presbytery of Wabash Valley (from which my church recently disafilliated), insists that every member of a departing church must explicitly request “dismissal.” After our church
and its members had been admitted to membership in the EPC, our members received a letter from the presbytery explaining that they had to be “dismissed” and would have to fill out a card requesting it.
I estimate that — as a courtesy — around 200 members out of 550 filled out the card. Contrast that with the dozen or so members who informed our session that they did not want to be transferred to membership in the EPC. How many members do you suppose the presbytery claims remain “loyal” to the PCUSA? The few who explicitly chose to stay, or the many who didn’t bother to request “dismissal” from a denomination they had already left?
While the presbytery may claim that with our departure the number of PCUSA members declined from 550 to 350, the number of voting commissioners declined from 4 to 0.
All of which makes me wonder — are there actually 2.21 million people who would declare themselves members of the PCUSA? I doubt it. Steve Jones, former PCUSA elder Komomo, Ind.
Berkley in the running for a Troubler of Israel Award
Posted Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Wow, Jim Berkley certainly seems to have toppled someone’s (or several someones) sacred cow. How dare he not love and gush over such a paragon of Presbyterian virtue such as the blessed Ghost Ranch. From the vitriolic screeching, you would think that he had, at the least, spit on the temple floor. What’s that you say? We don’t have temples? Hard to tell that from the rantings of Edward and Ina and Aurelia.
What a crock of, uh, nonsense! “… Jesus was a liberal?” How demeaning to try to pigeonhole the Christ to your ideological comfort zone. Ina claims Jim was haughty and pompous — she might want to review her own language. Oh, and by the way Ina — Liberation Theology is little more than Marxist class struggle in sheep’s clothing. In case you missed this part of our heritage, as Presbyterians, our theology is Reformed, not any of the person centered “ists” (e.g. feminist, womanist, liberationist, et al.)
Keep writing Jim, you are probably in the running for a Troubler of Israel Award. I’m quite proud of mine. Jim Yearsley Tampa, Fla
Quit ‘throwing so many rocks’ at PCUSA
Posted Wednesday, January 21, 2009
The greatest need in the Presbyterian Church today is to develop evangelism and outreach to build a worshiping people who honor God and enjoy the presence of Christ. It is my hope that the Presbyterian Lay Committee will find ways to help people grow in faith and commitment to Christ.
Most of our churches do not have the financial and legal resources to fight a battle of withdrawing from PCUSA. They would appreciate help in growing their Christian service and witness. Please quit “throwing so many rocks” at PCUSA and offer the churches positive ways to enjoy growing God’s kingdom.
I will be sending my funds to the Outreach Foundation, Presbyterian Frontier Fellowship and the Medical Benevolence Foundation. They seem to have a positive presentation of the Gospel. John Seibert Penny Farms, Fla.
News articles on the PCUSA are sad to read
Posted Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Thank you for sending me the four issues of The Layman from 2008. Please continue to send future issues to me.
Unfortunately, the news articles on the PCUSA are sad to read. The secular humanists have taken control and wrecked the PCUSA from what it once was and should be – God’s witness to believes and non-believers. Russell Hopley Indonesia
Background information on vote chart should be accurate and consistent
Posted Wednesday, January 21, 2009
I took a look at the voting chart on your Web site regarding the proposed changes to G-6.0106b. You reference the past history regarding proposed changes that affect G-6.0106b or as the heading notes “sex issues.” It is important to note that there are some inconsistencies that I believe need to be corrected or given more clarification.
You note about the passage of B: “In other words, it prohibits the ordination of self-affirming, practicing adulterers and homosexuals.”
Then you note about the proposed A in 1997-1998: “That proposed change, known as “Amendment A,” would have eliminated the constitutional prohibition against the ordination of adulterers and homosexuals.”
Then in 2001 you note about another A: “In 2001, presbyteries voted 46-127 against Amendment A which called for extracting the “fidelity/chastity” constitutional standard required for the ordination of church officers and ending the denomination’s historic Biblical theology that says homosexual activity is sinful.”
Amendment O seems to be a different animal since it only talks about unions and no certain sexual activities.
Here is what I find interesting. Your note about “A” in 1997 implies that all homosexuals, not just practicing, are prohibited from ordination if A doesn’t pass. However, I don’t believe this is accurate since there are conservatives in the PCUSA that believe it is OK for homosexuals to serve as long as they are celibate. Your note about 2001 doesn’t even mention adulterers, so does this mean that G-6.0106b in 2001 no longer applied to adulterers and so they have since then been OK to ordain? The most interesting fact in all of the debate about sex issues is that along with mentioning adulterers and practicing homosexuals there should also be mention of persons active in sex before marriage who have refused to repent of this behavior they engaged in. Of course I expect that might be ruffling too many feathers as it wouldn’t surprise me that more straight persons engaged in sexual relations before marriage than those being homosexuals or adulterers. Yet I expect many having the pre-marital relations have not truly repented of this or at least the PCUSA likes to downplay or not even mention this. I’m sure the persons having pre-marital sex in many cases had love for each other at the time they sinned and later married, but that doesn’t really count does it if they did not repent, correct? And if it is truly as great a sin (or is it?) then why is not mentioned in these debates along with the adulterers and homosexuals?
At any rate your chart on the votes is helpful and I’m sure accurate. But you do need to update the background information to be accurate and consistent. Needless to say, we Presbyterians no matter where we are on the spectrum like everything to be recorded and stated as explicitly as possible if we do nothing else.
Earl C. Apel, deacon Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church, Cincinnati, Ohio
May the current voting on G-6 be even more decisive that previous votes
Posted Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Moderator Ahn and Secretary Lee are to be congratulated for their excellent letter supporting votes for G-6.0106b by PCUSA churches. They make their point clearly and explain the consequences of PCUSA continuing on their “worldly agenda.” Let us pray that the current voting will be even more decisive than the last two votes were on this subject.
Ted Chapman Arcadia, Calif.
‘I just cannot find much about the ranch that is negative’
Posted Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The article [page 5] in the January 2009 Layman was very well written and interesting. However, I fail to understand or agree with the description of Ghost Ranch.
First, the name. Perhaps “Heaven Ranch” or “Jesus Wilderness (Desert)” you would think more fitting. The name has never bothered me.
As for location; the location may be somewhat isolated, but the scenery is spectacular which reminds me of God’s creation, very different from large buildings in populous cities, super highways and airports. The proximity to airports is not a priority. If anyone loves the clear air of the out-of-doors, Ghost Ranch is the place to go. I am reminded of Jesus’ experience in the desert. I just cannot find much about the ranch that is negative. You have to experience a worship service, communion or baptism in the out-of doors at Ghost Ranch to receive a rich but very different and lasting Christian experience.
I have experienced some great leadership and Christian resources in the events at the ranch. There is creativity in some of the offerings there, not necessarily the everyday type of experiences we find in other venues. It opens your mind and heart in new and surprising ways. But one has to be open to new things. Some of the cultural activities takes the participant back in time to the early native inhabitants and you feel a fellowship with them.
If you had a bad experience at Ghost Ranch, I am sorry, but perhaps you need to open your mind and soul a little and not be too critical of something that a great many of us Presbyterian Christians have enjoyed and loved and experienced in spiritual ways. It is easy to find fault about something which we know very little about. I have always appreciated those familiar words: Don’t try to remove the speck from someone’s eye until you have removed the beam from your own eye. Rev. Ray Garvey Tyler, Texas