Uwe Siemon-Netto asks the question “Is Calvinism on the wane in the United States?”
My answer is when was Calvinism ever that popular? Or it might be more appropriate to ask when was it popular to be Calvinist and follow the Presbyterian form of government? For our good friends the Baptists are Calvinist but follow the Congregational model.
In 1967 according to the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 198,712,056 persons in the United States. And, according the your article, there were 4.2 million Presbyterians. That equates to 2% of the population.
In 2004 the figure is 293,856,735 persons in the United States. And using the combined figures of your article with the PC (USA), the PCA, and the EPC this amounts to 2.8 million Presbyterians. This equates to 1% of the population.
So the bottom line is in 1967 and 2004 neither figure is something to boast about if one finds numbers of value. The real question I think needs to be answered is why didn’t 98% of the population in 1967 want to be Presbyterian and why doesn’t 99% want to be Presbyterian today?
I speculate that perhaps most people don’t find the representative form of church government that useful. And that is a shame I think. It either amounts to a loose federation of churches where each do as they please or a more authoritative model where the higher ups tell everyone else what to do. Maybe I’m strange, but these more popular forms don’t seem that effective at least from my view point. But then again I might need to be more open to a better system of government and maybe we just need to scrap our connectional nature that is perhaps out dated.
Earl C. Apel, deacon Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church , Cincinnati, Ohio,
What’s the option for Confessing Churches?
Posted Thursday, July 29, 2004
It now seems that the conservative side of PCUSA is not going to get a person in any of the high offices at General Assembly. We are losing members at 40K a year and no one seems to care.
I am a member of a Confessing Church and a number of our members have been upset by the actions of this last General Assembly. Some say they will leave the church before the next General Assembly in 2006 if our church does not leave the PCUSA.
Some of us had hoped the Confessing Churches would look at withdrawing from PCUSA if changes did not take place. Our last hope was that changes would take place at this General Assembly. The same people or kind of people got elected so no changes will take place. We cannot wait until 2006 for another vote or we will have another 80k members leave the denomination and some will be from Confessing Churches. Do you know of any activity that is ongoing to establish another denomination of the Confessing Churches? We have made some unofficial contacts with EPC and there are two churches from the PCUSA that joined them in 2003.
Larry Pulliam
Mainline Coalition a.k.a. ‘thought police
Posted Thursday, July 29, 2004
The so-called “Mainstream Coalition” sounds like it should be renamed the “Thought Police” to me. Sadly enough, this kind of maniacal intimidation of other people’s thoughts and words were made famous by people like Stalin, Hitler and Mao. The best of political liberals and conservatives should condemn this approach as an attempt to ban freedom of speech. Rather than promoting an environment of harassment and manipulation, we should be promoting an environment of openness, trust and honesty. The “Mainstream Coalition” is a tragic legacy for Rev. Meneilly, who has a positive reputation amongst liberals and conservatives for his ability to bring robust growth to the church.
Reverend Clifford D. Mansley Jr., senior pastor Brookdale Presbyterian Church,
NCC does include Biblical voting principles
Posted Thursday, July 29, 2004
A Layman article regarding the recently published NCC voting principles says that no Scripture is cited. While I am no apologist for the NCC, it should be noted that the NCC publication has two pages, the second of which is a study containing an examination of Biblical texts.
One can agree or disagree with the voting principles, but we can take from them a challenge to take seriously our civic obligation as Christians.
Geoff Ketcham Wenham, Mass.
Presbyterian view of Christian Zionism
Posted Thursday, July 29, 2004
While others in the General Assembly structure are charged with interpreting the whole of the Assembly’s actions regarding Israel, I need to make one clarifying remark concerning you article posted July 28, “Statement on Israel-Palestine spawns backlash v. backlash.”
In the article you write, “Kirkpatrick’s statement also condemned Jewish and Christian Zionism . . .” Nowhere does Kirkpatrick refer to “Jewish” Zionism. In fact, Kirkpatrick’s letter includes, ” These actions are rooted in a longstanding commitment to the secure existence of Israel and the Israeli people . . .”
The Assembly did take an action that declared that Christian Zionism is not consistent with the basic values of Reformed theology. It is important to note that “Christian Zionism” refers to a particular movement and does not simply mean “Christians who support the state of Israel.”
Instead, it is the wedding of a particular interpretation of the Bible, dispensationalism, with unquestioned support for the modern state of Israel – whose secure existence will trigger the second coming of Christ. The issues raised in Christian Zionism go to the heart of the way we understand the Scriptures, the nature of salvation and the identity of Jesus Christ, in addition to the concerns over how it interfaces with contemporary politics.
I would encourage all your readers to read the Assembly’s actions regarding Christian Zionism. There are a number of helpful resources listed in the action. In addition, if readers are interested in what we do believe about the coming of Christ, they will be interested in “Between Millennia: What Presbyterians Believe About the Coming of Christ.”
Charles Wiley Office of Theology and Worship,
Stated clerk candidate may run again
Posted Thursday, July 29, 2004
Numerous questions have been raised regarding my motives for supplying documents to the press regarding the orchestration of the Stated Clerk election.
Since I was receiving daily requests for this information, I decided it would be easiest to provide the information I had been given and to make it available to anyone who desired to receive the information. Two news organizations requested the information, the Presbyterian News Service and The Presbyterian Lay Committee.
Furthermore, I have offered the same information to the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly (COGA), which will review the whole process related to the nomination and election of the Stated Clerk.
In a recent letter, published by The Presbyterian Outlook on-line (still posted), I responded to a numerous questions about the election of the stated clerk. You can find the full text of my letter at the Web site of The Presbyterian Outlook.
As reported by the Presbyterian News Service, prior to the election, I never expected to win the election. I ran for a simple reason. I ran to lift up the Lordship of Jesus Christ and to call us back to being faithful to the Bible as God’s inspired, authoritative and infallible Word. Both friends and enemies tell me that in my presentation at GA this call was clearly proclaimed.
For months, I told the congregation which I serve that I would receive two votes. I know I have enemies because I have been an outspoken critic of the current leadership of the PCUSA. I will continue to speak out against leadership which demeans the Lordship of Jesus Christ and rejects the authority of scripture. In other words, don’t expect me to go away just because I did not win the election. In fact, I may run again for stated clerk in 2008.
Clifton Kirkpatrick is our current stated clerk. He won the election. As one of our key leaders, he bears the responsibility of turning around the PCUSA. However, I predict that because of his continuing failed leadership our rapid decline during the past eight years will only accelerate. If we “stay the course,” as many commissioners voted to do, I believe that not only will we continue to lose members, but we will continue to lose status and influence within the Christian Church worldwide. The PCUSA is seen by many as a fringe denomination because we no longer clearly proclaim the Lordship of Jesus Christ and live obedient to Scripture.
Finally, I have never claimed that the election was rigged. However, I do believe that “the process” was worked to ensure Clifton Kirkpatrick’s re-election. I have asked the moderator of the COGA to invite me to participate in the committee’s evaluation of the election process. Furthermore, I believe that Bob Davis and Alex Metherell deserve the same opportunity.
Will we be invited to meet with COGA face-to-face? I hope so. I believe that by giving us this opportunity, COGA will reveal their commitment to improve the process of the election of the Stated Clerk.
I continue to pray for the PCUSA and I will continue to proclaim the Lordship of Jesus Christ and to be obedient to God’s inspired, authoritative and infallible Word. I love the PCUSA too much to turn my back and walk away.
L Rus Howard Venetia, Pa.
Clerk’s race: no foul, no harm
Posted Thursday, July 29, 2004
Maybe I missed something, but the questions posed by the Clifton Kirkpatrick supporters looked very “predictable.” The incumbent and all three opponents should have been able to address them. These questions should have been on everybody’s mind. If all four candidates had an opportunity to answer, I see no foul and no harm. Can we see a transcript of the answers?
What strikes me as sad, though, is that someone felt obliged to write out questions, rather than let Kirkpatrick supporters, ask what was on their minds and hearts and what they might have said themselves. Reminds me of a day, back in the military, when a 3-star general was going to meet with a group of “us” lieutenants and captains. He was scheduled to talk for a few minutes then take some questions.
The majors and colonels in between us and the general didn’t want to “risk it” that a young officer would ask a stupid or embarrassing question, so (unknown to the general, I assume) they wrote out some “safe” questions on little strips of paper and handed them out to the attendees before the general arrived. When the general finished his remarks and took the first question, the questioner (a friend of mine) asked his carefully scripted question (without looking or reading, by the way), but the general didn’t hear it right and went off on a long digression about something else. At that point he had to leave, the rest of the questions unasked. I was embarrassed for everyone involved.
So maybe the pre-election questions were meant to protect the supporters (probably from faults they didn’t really have), and calm down the “handlers” (from things they didn’t need to worry about) not protect the candidate.
Eric Wallace Dayton, Ohio
How to rein in the PCUSA on Israel
Posted Thursday, July 29, 2004
Many faithful Christians and Jews were outraged at the decision of the General Assembly to begin divesting of companies contracted to construct Israel’s security fences and walls. Understandably, proponents of this decision are outraged at the outrage. The bottom line is that it is wrong for the GA to assume political positions on behalf of Presbyterians. They may have the power to do so, but it is still wrong.
What can be done to repair the damage done by the GA? Certainly, letters and sermons won’t do it. After stewing and praying, a plan that is balanced and constructive came to mind. Please ask your session to send the following letter to the stated clerk of the GA:
“So that the Jewish community understands that Presbyterians are truly interested in the welfare of Israeli citizens, the Session of __________________________ Presbyterian Church will withhold per capita funds from the PCUSA and invest these funds in dividend yielding securities of companies from which the GA shall choose to divest itself. Dividends from these investments will be donated to charities that provide care and rehabilitation for Israeli children who have lost parents or who have been disabled as a result of terrorist attacks, keeping in mind that many of these attacks could have been prevented had the security fences and walls been in place. When the GA rescinds its divestiture policy, securities purchased with withheld per capita funds will be transferred to the PCUSA.”
Opportunities for IRS approved tax-deductible charities that cater to orphaned and disabled Israeli children can be found at http://info.jpost.com/C002/Supplements/CharitableFunds/
Please feel free to edit this letter prior to publishing. Thank you for your consideration.
Evan B. Janovitz Cranbury, NJ ,
General Assembly is all about power
Posted Wednesday, July 28, 2004
I would have been surprised if there wasn’t any manipulation of the voting process at the GA by the liberals. This is all about power. You have to ask yourself why any supposed public servant such as Clifton Kirkpatrick would want to continue leading such a miserably flawed administration. If you are truly a man of God, wouldn’t it be obvious to you to step down and let someone else take over? If you really cared about your church losing so many members, wouldn’t you wake up one day and think just maybe someone else would be better for the job?
I think this is the core sentiment of most of the letters to The Layman. A logical and spiritual person just cannot grasp the audacity and insanity of this situation. The position we find ourselves in defies all logic, and is made worse by the fact that we are a church denomination. This should not be happening to good Christians. Cheating and manipulation are not behaviors associated with Christians. Yet, that is where we are.
Our church is completely dominated by liberal politics, and to think otherwise is just plain denial. If you do not see it, please wake up! Clifton Kirkpatrick had to run for stated clerk, because giving up the position would have meant turning the fortunes of the church leadership over to Conservatives. Liberals are rendered useless without power. They have no true conviction or values and they know it. If you want evidence of that, you only need to look at their stance on abortion and gay ordination. Liberals want their agenda to succeed at all cost, even at the expense of losing members. There is no compromise, and there is no such thing as giving up power, even for the health of the denomination.
One has to be very desperate in order to try and manipulate the voting process. And people accuse The Layman of paranoia! We must look at this event positively. Evil cannot sustain itself forever. The reason for the decline of the Soviet Union was not due to any special effort on our part. It fell due to its evil nature. The liberals of our church are going to bring themselves down some day due to their evil nature. It is sad that it has to come to this.
David Hankins
Separating the faithful from the deceitful
Posted Wednesday, July 28, 2004
The left is using the word “unite” as a ploy for keeping their foot in God’s door to divide the church.
Let us not be taken in by that. They will never, never unite to obey God’s Word. They do not respect or adhere to God’s Word, which is the essence of our faith.
Our Lord told his disciples to “get out of the town or city” that would not receive His laws.
It’s time to pray about severing completely the faithful from the deceitful.
Ida M. Lee
The end of a hierchial denomination?
Posted Wednesday, July 28, 2004
I’m not surprised that those at the head of the denomination may have cheated and lied to affect the outcome of the election.
But keep in mind, if the election process was fixed in any way, it is illegitimate. If it is illegitimate we are no longer a hierarchical denomination. If we are no longer a hierarchical denomination then the argument that has often been used to enforce the denomination’s lien on congregational property is patently invalid.
Let’s hope they’re given enough rope to hang themselves.
Jack O’Brien Pittsburgh, Pa. ,
Wearing Soulforce shirt was his ‘witness’
Posted Wednesday, July 28, 2004
In response to a letter by David Hankins:
I have never been accused of lacking courage. I do not hide behind anything. I think I stated very clearly that wearing a Soulforce shirt is done as a witness, just as I witness to other things in other ways.
What is interesting is that The Layman did not mention the t-shirt in their original story. It only became an issue to them when I challenged the article. And by the way, The Layman took the picture of Lisa and I from the TAMFS web site, without attributing the source; once again falling below standard journalistic practices. It was no great scoop by The Layman.
In the future, I invite you, Mr. Hankins, and others to contact me directly instead of attacking me and others through the letters column. My email address is: paulpeterson@tamfs-michigan.org.
I will gladly correct the many serious misunderstandings of Scripture that constantly appear in the letters to The Layman. I have full confidence in the power of the Holy Spirit to break through the hardest heart and help people discover More Light.
Paul Peterson
A challenge to ‘fed up’ PCUSA members
Posted Wednesday, July 28, 2004
Mr. Alan Cole of McLean, Va. asks the very appropriate question in his July 27 letter: “So why don’t the people in the pews who are fed up make it a point to elect elders, presbyters, and commissioners who will do what it takes to oust all those leftist church bureaucrats?”
All of the PCUSA surveys show that the theological conservatives represent the majority of the membership. My challenge to each “fed up” church member is this. Begin immediately to elect elders, presbyters, and commissioners who will do what it takes to oust those leftist church bureaucrats. Do not wait for your minister or renewal group to do it for you. They have been trying for years with little success. It is the responsibility of each member to rise up and take action.
We have 15 months before the slate of commissioners begin to be elected to GA 2006. You must start now. Upon reading this letter, forward a copy to your church friends and encourage them to meet with you to start action now. Contact a member of another church in your presbytery and ask them to meet with you to start action now.
All it takes is one person in each church to make a major change in the denomination. Are you that person? Or are you waiting for some other unnamed person to take action for you?
Larry Rued First Presbyterian Church,
Reasons to leave the PCUSA
Posted Wednesday, July 28, 2004
This is in response to a letter written by Rev. Daniel E. Hale, who wrote, “… is there an orthodox majority in our denomination? If so, then we need to take responsibility for what has taken place and seek to prayerfully change it.”
For crying out loud, Clifton Kirkpatrick was re-elected Stated Clerk by a two-thirds majority! The majority of the PCUSA love this man! Of course, there will be those who actually enjoy being a minority, a church within a church. Look, here are some reasons to leave the PCUSA:
1. What Scripture says, “Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord (2 Cor. 6:17; see also Rev. 18:4).
2. People will always assume that if you’re Presbyterian, you stand behind everything that comes out of Louisville. I’m EPC, and people assume that’s true of me!
3. Maybe you can stay in the PCUSA and hold on to your orthodox convictions, but what about your children?
4. Instead of fretting over what the home office is doing, you could be spending all of your time and energy doing the Lord’s work.
5. If you’re not where the Holy Spirit is moving, who knows what blessings you could be missing!
Fifty years from now, there won’t be a PCUSA, a WCC or an NCC. The EPC, PCA, OPC, etc. will still be there. I’m 53 now, so I’ll be dead then. However, one could “speed its coming” to use the language of 2 Peter 3:12, by getting out now!
Rev. Dr. Larry Brown
Manipulation story much ado about nothing
Posted Wednesday, July 28, 2004
It seems to me that the article “Documents released on efforts to manipulate stated clerk vote” is much ado about little or nothing. Neither Rus Howard nor The Layman apparently can stop their sour grapes attitude at losing the election overwhelmingly.
First, the vote was secret and by electronic ballot, so how would one “manipulate” it?
Second, so supporters hurried to the microphones to ask “friendly” questions. What is to stop a candidate from rising to a point of order and request of the Assembly that questions be asked alternately of all the candidates.
You also imply something sinister in the following, prodded by Mr. Howard: “Kirkpatrick denied that he gave any instructions to his supporters and Ufford-Chase said he was unaware of an orchestrated effort to control the microphones and ask questions that gave Kirkpatrick the edge. Yet, during the questions and answers, Howard noted that the first four questions were taken from the script and posed by commissioners and delegates who were on the list.”
Do you and Mr. Howard mean to suggest by the “yet” that both the stated clerk and the Moderator were lying? If so, have the courage to make an open accusation against both through the disciplinary processes of the church, not by sniveling innuendo.
Mr. Kirkpatrick was re-elected in an open process in which he garnered in the neighborhood of two-thirds of the vote. If there is manipulation — and I do not believe there was, instead there were supporters who foolishly running scared, operated with the wisdom of serpents to get to the microphones — it is going on right now in this absurd attempt to manipulate the truth.
Submit genuine evidence to any investigative body you wish, but please refrain from cooperating with Mr. Howard’s ill-concealed attempt at character assassination. He should get a life!
Neil D. Cowling Kirk of Our Savior