Posted Friday, April 29, 2011
I hesitate to even enter this conversation between Janet Edwards and Noel Anderson. I will not enter any of my opinions here, but since “all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16), I would like to apply God’s Word to this debate.
Edwards says in her letter on April 27, “‘Do not judge’, commands Jesus.”
She references Matthew 7, and I think these verses are so important, that it is crucial to look at the full context of those verses of what Jesus says in Matthew 7:1-5, which is helpful in framing this debate.
Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, “Let me take the speck out of your eye,” when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
The end of verse 5 is important and is often missed. Jesus doesn’t say “Don’t judge … and ignore the speck in your brother’s eye.” Our Lord and Savior doesn’t say to ignore sin. He doesn’t say to leave the speck in our brother’s eye.
Instead, he gives a strong warning – He says to take the plank out of our own eyes, and then we will see clearly to “remove the speck in our brother’s eye.”
We in the Body of Christ are saved through the grace of God and are called to hold ourselves in loving accountability. We are all sinners, and any correction should be done in a deep, deep humility. But we are to correct when we see sin – we are not to just focus on verse 1 of Matthew 7 and ignore verse 5.
Matthew 18:15-17 gives us a great model for this, but I guess when we are in “Letters to the Editor” stage, it is for the world to see.
Kevin T. Smith Manera, Va.
No coherent reasons for tossing out the Book Of Order and replacing it with nFog
Posted Friday, April 29, 2011
It seems odd that the only person attempting to support nFog is an interim minister from Arkansas [letter to the editor, posted April 26]. Neither he, nor anyone else, has ever given any coherent reasons (at least that they want to talk about) for tossing out the Book Of Order and replacing it with nFog. Scripture based conservatives that do not understand what nFog has in store for the PCUSA are in for a real shock. Peter Stuart Charlotte, N.C.
Letting the Scriptures as a whole interpret Scripture
Posted Friday, April 29, 2011
Response to John McWilliams’ letter, posted April 19, 2011:
I appreciate your attention to our studies, and that you don’t simply dismiss them out of hand. We hope that we can have a good discussion of the issues. John, you mention eisegesis. That is exactly the term I thought of as I read your response. It is interesting and encouraging that you admit that you are assuming certain concepts that in fact are not in the Biblical text. However you exclude some things that we think are integral to the text (“We” means Janet Edwards and Arlo Duba). Two items come to mind. I said that my exegesis is based on the whole of Luke/Acts, and I simply focus on four episodes that demonstrate that exegesis. We are talking about letting the Scriptures as a whole interpret Scripture, first taking it apart, piece by piece, but trying to ascertain how and if those pieces contribute to what patterns. The discovery of patterning is how scripture interprets Scripture.
One of the first concerns is your statement that Acts 8:26-40 is not at all about gender. My question is, why did Luke mention the gender condition of the eunuch five times? In each of those instances he could have used the eunuch’s nationality as Ethiopian. But the word “Ethiopian” occurs only once, and he keeps stressing eunuch, eunuch, eunuch, eunuch, eunuch, five times! Letting the passage speak for itself seems to say that Luke is very much stressing the gender condition of the eunuch. We cannot understand your saying, not only once but several times, that this passage is not about gender. It appears that you have brought an eisegetic concept with you that conceals this fact.
In tracing the trajectory of the 52 chapters of Luke/Acts, one has to ask, why did Luke choose this story at this point? You are correct that gender does not appear in the Peter-Cornelius story, but on the other hand, that story provides the culmination of the inclusiveness that has characterized the trajectory from the first chapter of Luke. It is in Acts 10-11 that Luke’s metaphoric interpretation is, for the first time, explicitly stated, not simply referred to metaporically. Peter’s sheet was not merely about permission to eat pork, shrimp and lobster. Through this metaphoric revelation God showed Peter that he should call no human being profane or unclean (10:28), and I believe that is summary of all the incidents that go all the way back to Luke 9:54 and the evident eagerness of the disciples completely to reject, even destroy the Samaritans, to Jesus parable just a few verses later, of the Good Samaritan in 10:25-37, an even stronger rebuke of the disciples than you see in 9:54. Peter had to “see through” the metaphoric window to a deeper meaning that is not self-evident in the originating “sheet” text. But it also invites us to “see through” whatever metaphoric window we are to see in the eunuch text. In fact, I think it forces us to search for that deeper meaning.
What is the deeper meaning of the eunuch, eunuch, eunuch story that Luke wants us to see? What do we find in the story itself, and not in our Sunday school memory of the story? If we limit the meaning simply to the conversion of a single castrated male, I became convinced that we would be missing something important. In fact, church historians back to Eusebius in the third century affirm that the eunuch became a leader, in fact the founder of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. So we ask, what presuppositions do we bring to the story? What are we tempted to eisegete into the story? Here are a few:
The eunuch “should repent of whatever sin is in his life and accept Jesus as his Savior.” But there is no mention of repentance in the story. We think that is a necessity and we eisegete that into the story, but we have to ask, why did Luke leave that out? And, our old assumption that, as you say, it would be, “foolish to assume that Phillip would consent to the man’s baptism” without assurance of repentance. But even in our Presbyterian baptismal service we say that in an adult baptism “we are made members of the church, the body of Christ and joined to Christ’s ministry of love, peace and justice,” (BCW, 405) and we perhaps wrongly assume repentance. And Luke does in fact leave that out of his very condensed story. But then it is necessary to try to figure out why Luke makes no mention of it. It seems obvious that Luke has in mind something different or deeper. But we invite you to go through your own statement and note how often you say that the person who accepts Christ as Savior (again one of our pet phrases that is not in this narrative) will “do what is right and acceptable to God” Acts 10:35, and we hear you say in your heart, that will mean forsaking homosexual acts. I am certain Luke did not have that in mind, and if that implication is there, it is a case of eisegesis.
So let us back up and note all the supernatural components of the story. The angelic messenger appears to Philip, a sign of a very important revelatory event, who “speaks to Philip.” The strange setting, on a desert road, at high noon. The identity of the rider in the chariot (The Greek says simply “and behold, man, Ethiopian, eunuch.” Ethiopian could be an adjective or a noun. Man and eunuch are quite different, even opposites. We are faced with a range of ambiguities. And there is nothing in the story that says that was “his own chariot.” My eisegesis from Sunday school was that it belonged to the Queen of Candace and he was her servant.) An Ethiopian was a legendary figure, and the word eunuch is itself ambiguous and strange. Jeremiah uses the Hebrew word, saris seven times, and the NIV does not translate that word even once as eunuch, but uses four other words to translate it (though in 38:7, this passage that is translated as Ethiopian eunuch in most Bibles, is here a Cushite official, and the word eunuch is placed in a footnote).
Add the unexpected availability of water for a baptism in a desert, the enigmatic statement in Greek: “and he baptized him.” Yes, I believe that the first “he” refers to Philip, but I have to ask the question, “Why wasn’t Luke more specific? Why did he leave the subject so subjective? Was there a reason?” We have no answer for that, but it might be that Luke was being ambiguous throughout this story to grasp our attention and keep us wondering and searching. And of course, the final spectacular supernatural component is that Philip was “snatched away,” reminding us of the taking up of our risen Lord Jesus at Emmaus, and the translation of Elijah. This is an incredibly supernatural event!
All of these factors seem to point to Luke’s desire to stress the extreme importance of this particular story. So we ask, if the metaphor or Peter’s sheet had such a profound translation, from creepy-crawley creatures to the acceptance of Gentiles, to what beyond the conversion of one castrated male are we supposed to find in the Ethiopian eunuch story? What deep “beyond the ordinary” meaning are we to see here?
The exegetical conclusion seems to be that God is trying to tell us something profound, something that will contribute to the inclusivism theme pattern of Luke’s gospel. And it must have something to do with gender.
There is one more issue that is raised that I believe needs to be addressed. The Lukan material repeatedly challenges Levitical and Deuteronomic materials. One respondent to us said that Jesus only applied his “You have heard it said of old that … , but I say to you. …” to ritual regulations; that Jesus (and thus, God) never altered any of the Old Testament moral code. Our question is, in what church council do we find that? Or even in what Biblical passage or post-biblical event do we find that division? And where are they listed? Or could it be that people are using the eisegetic method of “you pick and choose” as you please? Could God in fact have a change of mind on any number of things? Torah was altered with reference to who is my neighbor. Deuteronomy 23:1 was abrogated with reference to the only gender-specific reference in the Torah, beginning all the way back to Jeremiah and Isaiah. Those who object to homosexual leadership in the church have seemed to be determined to assert that homosexuality, but particularly, homosexual practice, is always unforgiveable. There are all kinds of assumptions out there that, as you assume, that we know what “normal homosexual behavior” is, and that “there are standards which God has put in place” that it appears that even God cannot or will not change. That is certainly eisegesis. There is that marvelous aphorism, that often “we have put a period where God intended only a comma.”
And, after this study I believe that 52 chapters of Luke-Acts well overbalance 1 Cor. 6:9, and Romans 1:24-31. In fact, the Apostle Paul reminds me of John Calvin who, before communion, excommunicates so many categories of people that not one human being could be excepted, but then invites people to the table, praying as they come to the table, that God will look upon them and see only the blood of Christ, and not their iniquities. In the same way, Romans 1 is followed by Romans 7 and 8: That though sin has filled our mortal bodies, there is still no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. And the Corinthian correspondence includes affirmations of spiritual gifts, and admonitions to love and to serve. There are two registers of speech, and we should be conscious of both, but we must be faithful to the Gospel as it comes to us through the totality, the whole sweep of our only rule of faith and practice, the patterns we find in the holy Scriptures, the Bible.
Mr. McWilliams, we must look at our theology. We start from Calvin’s (and we think to the Bible’s) covenantal theology. We see this all the way back to Moses and the judges, where “whoring after other gods” is the breaking of the covenant Yahweh made with Israel. The covenant relationship is key and it is that which should characterize Christian marriage. Marriage is much more than a contract. Contracts belong to civil law, with reference to the ownership and transfer of property. From the beginning, God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was good, in fact, very good. But there is one thing in the creation story that is not good. It is not good for a person to be alone. Your last full paragraph is key. Does the context of a covenant relationship hallow sexuality? You are correct that Duba and Edwards do affirm that a covenanted relationship between two people has a strategic and basic connection with what happens between them. And that can include a number of gradations. I know of two men who have celebrated 50 years of their life together. Throughout those years there was certainly camaraderie, a very close friendship, surely even affection, but they never divulged anything about sexual contact during those years. I consider it none of our business. But you have come so close to where we are. But we conclude that in a covenant relationship we do not think that an intimate relationship would be called a sin. Could it be that when the Lord looks down on us, or on them, actually on both them and us, that He sees the blood of Christ, not the iniquities that mar every part of all our lives?
We would like to share with you the story of Rabbi Levado, an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi, whose misery one can almost feel as you read his story. And you have probably experienced instances where Christian men who seek to overcome same-sex attraction, got married, conceived children, made their wives miserable because the husband was not “present” to his wife. I know of an instance where after extensive counseling and attempted transformation, they inevitably divorced. The former wife remarried, is happy, and now is a worker with More Light Presbyterians. She says that if her former husband had not faced the antagonism of the church toward homosexuality, he would have been free, rather than bound in fear and torment, which then was inflicted on her and their children, the innocent ones. We think that we must be accepting, and we do so by stressing the ultimate covenant relationship that we must cultivate and nourish with our Lord, a covenant relationship we seek to reflect our one covenant relationship with one other human being.
This then moves out to a Christian community, our congregation. It moves on out to society, to the larger community, to humanity and to the world, and at that point we are again moving to our relationship with God in Christ who is all in all.
I have very much appreciated others of your letters to The Layman, particularly the one on the processes that are in place providing local option to congregations and presbyteries if and when 10-A passes, which I sincerely hope it does. And I applaud your cautions about splitting the church. We need to bow to and work for Jesus’ prayer that we may be one. I hope that we can frame a Presbyterian church whose framework is really on the Scripture. And I have to say again, that my own exegesis of Luke-Acts, has spread to re-studying Matthew and Romans specifically at the moment. I now talk about Luke and the Acts of the Holy Spirit – the apostles were powerless, but the Holy Spirit moved them far, far beyond the human. Praise God!
May the Holy Spirit lead you as you think on these things. If the Holy Spirit leads you to see a different powerful and profound meaning, matching the transformative and supernatural meaning in the eunuch story that takes into consideration the patterns to which I have pointed, I will want to hear it. The Rev. Arlo D. Duba, Ph.D. Professor of Worship Emeritus and Former Seminary Dean, Princeton, N.J.
Misguided people try to twist God’s Word to fall into their way of thinking
Posted Friday, April 29, 2011
The Presbyterian Church I grew up in at First Presbyterian in Orlando, Fla., no longer exists! Thank the Lord for the teaching and preaching of Dr. Marshall Dendy!
The Bible is the Word of God. Misguided people try to twist the Word of God to fall into their way of thinking and system of beliefs. It is the last straw to change the ordination requirements to satisfy those who have corrupted the Scriptures! Ervin R. Joslin
Scrutinizing the imagery in place of addressing relevant issues
Posted Friday, April 29, 2011
One symptom of failing dialogue is the close scrutiny of imagery in place of addressing relevant issues. I don’t fault Dr. Edwards [letter to the editor, posted April 27] for picking up on the Umbridge reference (which was not meant to apply to her personally but rather to the politically-pile driving worldview which remains hell-bent usurping the broader Presbyterian view), but I am disappointed she didn’t address the more salient points of the letter.
We can always expect to be called judgmental – which is the accusation thrown at anyone who expresses dissent over the progressive agenda – and we are expected to feel something like shameful recoil over judging others. It’s an empty accusation. We are not to judge others, but that does not mean we are not expected to exercise good judgment. The difference tends to be ignored by those who benefit from their confusion.
Warning: illustration – just an illustration – coming next. Your daughter wants to go out with a guy whose pants sag halfway off his rear, flashing the top half of his fruit-of-the-looms; he sports a “mudflap girl” cap sideways, and he has bad facial hair and a pierced tongue. His van, with the words “Love Wagon” on the side, is left running at the curb and your seashells are rattling in the bookcase because of van’s over-amped bass. He greets you by saying, “Yo Mama! whassup?” Be real: while you do not judge this young man’s soul, you do exercise good judgment by saying something like, “Good sir, you will not be taking my daughter out this evening.” Of course the first thing he accuses you of is being judgmental.
Yes, we are not to judge others in any ultimate sense, but as God is judge of all, we bear a worldly responsibility to represent God’s good judgment in all earthly matters. Scripture does not stand in conflict with God’s good judgment. God does judge sin, and we are neither lost for knowing His judgment nor for cautiously and carefully representing the verdict of Scripture on any issue.
Not all adverse reactions to homosexual behavior are ground in fear or hatred. Disapproval is not hatred. Dissent is not judgment.
Again, I believe our only hope for common ground is if gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Christians will confess their sin as sin and otherwise abandon every semblance of self-justifying politics. Doing this is what brings us to the table together. Noel Anderson, senior pastor First Presbyterian Church of Upland, Calif.
No desire to dialogue with one who believes in the politically correct perspective on Scripture
Posted Friday, April 29, 2011
Really? Janet Edwards [letter to the editor, posted April 27] is seriously taking umbrage at comparisons to fictional characters in books celebrating magic and paganism? And we’re to take her seriously and enter into dialogue. I can’t do it. I can’t take her seriously and I can’t take her umbrage seriously.
I have no desire to continue a so-called dialogue in which she believes only the politically correct and humanist perspective on Scripture and sin to be true. Her blithe and callous dismissal [letter to the editor, posted April 19] of Mr. Jeffreys’ testimony is enough evidence of her (and her cohort’s) narrow minded bigotry toward the orthodox believer. Equally difficult to take seriously is such specious reasoning as this: “evidence in the form of scientific studies, personal testimony and the experience of one leader after another in these programs whose behavior belies success.” and “We have the reports of thousands of faithful Presbyterians who understand same-gender love and commitment to be a good thing (and not a sin).”
I think it was Anatole France who said: “If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.” Jim Yearsley Tampa, Fla.
Does anyone remember 2009?
Posted Friday, April 29, 2011
I pass this on from the August, 2009 Washington Times …
It was just before 2 p.m. when someone rushed into the pressroom and told the people to vacate the place fast! A tornado had touched down close by, and it was heading toward the Minneapolis Convention Center. Inside, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America’s (ELCA) churchwide assembly was taking place, and the police wanted everyone in a safe place away from the glass windows that encased the huge Convention complex.
So everyone rushed into the main hall to join some 1,045 voting members who were listening to a talk about the prodigal son being given by Luther Seminary Old Testament professor Diane Jacobson. As she continued speaking, a palpable blanket of fear descended on the entire group as the doors to the outside hallways were shut, enclosing everyone in the giant room, which apparently was the safest place to be in the case of a tornado.
Just after 2 p.m., the tornado ripped through the neighborhood and knocked the cross off the steeple of Central Lutheran Church just across the street from the convention center.
During the storm, ELCA President Mark Hanson read outloud the 121st Psalm to calm everyone down. “We trust the weather is not a commentary on our work,” said the Rev. Steven Loy, chairman of an ad hoc committee on a controversial statement on human sexuality that was on the floor that afternoon. The statement, which opened the door to greater acceptance of homosexual practice, passed by an exact two-thirds vote a few hours later.
Let’s see, the vote passed by two thirds … that’s 66.6 percent right?
If God was speaking — was anyone listening? John Buechner Westminster, Colo.
The images we use for one another are a choice
Posted Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Through the whole course of this valuable exchange of letters over the past months, there have also been some chilling comments made. One such comment has come in Rev. Noel Anderson’s letter dated April 20, 2011, in which he makes a comparison between Dolores Umbridge in Harry Potter and me. I’ve read the Harry Potter series and I know who Dolores Umbridge is. This comparison is a sobering measure of the challenge to meaningful dialogue between colleagues in ministry in the PCUSA.
“Do not judge,” commands Jesus. Judgment belongs to God. And I am not God. Anderson is not God. Can we just pause there and dwell in that truth? Can we share for a moment Job’s humility in the face of the seemingly intractable whirlwind whipping around all of us in the PCUSA?
A very Protestant essential of Christian understanding related to judgment belonging to God is that each of us answers solely to God for the actions and choices of our lives. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Christians stand before God’s judgment with Christ standing by, just as each and every one of us does. We have heard loud and clear the condemnation expressed by Anderson and others, but we answer to God alone.
I am ready to converse with Anderson. I pray he can become so with me.
The other telling image used by Anderson is that of the lawnmower and the grass as if these are the only options for us in the church. If this is the only dynamic within the church there is very little hope. There is no room for trust between the grass and the lawnmower so no wonder trust is so hard to come by between us if this is how we see one another.
The good news is this: We have choices in this life. The images we use for one another are a choice. Trust is a choice and entails both trust in God and in one another.
My calling to dialogue rests upon trust that the Holy Spirit moves within the interchange between us and that we take seriously our promise to be friends among our colleagues in ministry. Trust in these two things is the basis for a blessed dialogue.
I know it is impossible to be friends with Dolores Umbridge, so I invite you to live into a different image. You could consider seeing me as Professor Sprout, steady, head of Hufflepuff, the house that takes “all the rest.” If I were to pick a character in Harry Potter, this is more how I see myself. When I repent and place myself in God’s loving hands, this is what I want to become. How about a good conversation with Professor Sprout?
And instead of an image of grass and lawnmower, can we live into the beautiful image of a spring garden with its riot of color that still is all one to the glory of God?
I look forward to a response. The peace of Christ be with you all, Rev. Dr. Janet Edwards Co-Moderator, More Light Presbyterians
nFOG will never make the denomination more ‘missional’
Posted Tuesday, April 26, 2011
I have a question that I know cannot be answered. I wonder how many of the people voting for the nFOG have actually read and digested it. I suspect that because of the length many do not know what they are voting for. I suspect that many who voted for it at the General Assembly had not read and digested the whole thing.
The nFOG will never make the denomination more “missional.” No document can do so. Only the Holy Spirit blowing through congregations can make those congregations reach out to their communities. Further there is nothing that a congregation could do if the nFOG is approved that it cannot do under the current FOG.
A careful read suggests that the nFOG gives too much power to the GA (like the ability to decide every two years the number and subject of the various ordination exams). There are too many negatives and too many unknowns.
Please, those of you who will vote the nFOG up or down sometime in the future read the thing and make informed decisions! Robert Campbell, pastor Tully Memorial Presbyterian Church, Sharon Hill, Pa.
nFOG boldly reclaims the authoritative witness of Christ to and through the church
Posted Tuesday, April 26, 2011
My thanks to Rev. Henkel [letter to the editor, posted April 20, 2011] for his willingness to engage so thoughtfully with me in these pages on the most worthy topic of the nFOG. This is a serious matter in the life of our denomination and spirited debate and exchange of ideas is essential to both our unity and our future.
At issue in his response is Henkel’s objection to the use of the word “all” and its implications of universalism. The word does indeed appear many times in the opening paragraphs of the nFOG, however, I disagree with the contention that this is by definition an endorsement of universalism. Rather I believe that it is an endorsement of the unique nature of the witness of God incarnate in Jesus Christ. What is being communicated in these opening lines is not a conviction about salvation, but about the truth in our theological conviction that the good news of the kingdom of God, the promise of sight to the blind, the promise of freedom from oppression and the proclamation of God’s favor are uniquely the message of Christ. Christ is not one of many bearers of the promises of God, but very word made flesh.
To the second batch of “alls” in the following paragraph, I contend that nothing could be more orthodox than to rightly claim for the church the unique calling to bear witness to the word made flesh in Christ. It is the church, and no other human institution, that bears witness through word, table, font and the call to discipleship. The message of this second paragraph reclaims the church’s mission over and against the voices of the world.
While I would certainly concede that it is possible to read this text as universalist, I would also argue that to do so requires that you go to the text looking for that universalism. The nFOG is not a perfect document and perhaps it is not precise enough in some respects, however it does do one very important thing; it boldly reclaims the unique and authoritative witness of Christ to and through the church in the midst of a world of need. For that I thank its authors, the committee and GA that recommended it to the church and all those willing to rethink what it means to be the faithful body of Christ in the world.
My thanks again to Rev. Henkel and all of my brothers and sisters in Christ who care enough about the church and its future to stay engaged when so many are walking away. The Reverend Dr. Robert Wm Lowry, interim pastor First Presbyterian Church of Batesville, Ark.
We’ve lost the ability to proclaim, and defend the essential tenets of Christianity
Posted Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Dr. Edwards’ otherwise-gracious letter [posted April 19, 2011] falls short in being gracious to those who have benefitted from reparative therapy. I would expect someone of her intellectual caliber to exercise caution before affirming to her sisters and brothers what she calls “voluminous evidence” over the claim that such ministry is “harmful” to glbt [gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender] people.
“Harmful?” Do we immediately bypass “helpful for some” or “for many but not every” and slam down the gavel at “harmful?” I suppose you could also say that the 38-year, otherly-abled man at Bethzatha was harmed by being told to get up, pick up his pallet and go his way. Or that Lazarus was harmed by having his restful peace disrupted by the command to rise up and return to this hurtful world.
I, like many others in the PCUSA, am positively dying to find areas of agreement with Edwards and those of her worldview. We do fine at agreeing on the Presbyterian name and perhaps 80 percent of our constitution, but we’ve lost the ability to proclaim, articulate and/or otherwise defend the essential tenets of Christianity. Trust has floundered and not for the lack of meetings. The thrust and parry which Edwards holds responsible for our diminishment is in fact our best attempts at dialogue.
I have been as engaged in the thrust and parry as just about anyone, but this is part of the solution. Thrust and parry are all that is left of accountability – perhaps the last remnant of what once was a robust theological dialectic – the last hope for the correction of flawed thinking. Rogers, et. al., are among the slaughtered bodies on the field – victims of the battle fatigue. It’s too bad; they were good men. Their credibility is dead with evangelicals.
I, like Edwards, have my daily devotions which begin, “Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner.” I want all glbt Christians to be able to pray that same prayer and know how eager Our Lord is to justify us. We do not – cannot – justify ourselves, which is exactly what all the glbt advocacy is – an attempt to self-justify a worldview which stands at odds with the hope of healing and redemption in Christ.
Edwards, et. al., want to pretend they are not sinners. They want the entire denomination to say homosexuality is blessed, a gift from God. They believe this, and those of us that look on are flabbergasted, but the flabbergast wears off in time with enough erosive pressure from our host culture.
Furthermore, what Edwards calls “love” is suspect; I don’t trust it. I trust in a divine love that meets us where we are but demands an inconvenient, perhaps painful, transformation of heart, soul and lifestyle. I believe in the love that has God alone as its veritable source. Edwards’ love, I fear, may be a sloppy indulgence – a fatuous, grandmotherly overindulgence bordering on negligence and amounting to little more than a paper-thin veneer covering incompetence. Call it gospelphobia: the inability to follow-through with the demands of the Gospel’s high calling. This is the kind of love many Presbyterians want institutionalized, and it is deadly to the Church.
The fact that Edwards and hers are coming into power makes their whitewash of gentleness all the more painful. Like Professor Umbridge in the Harry Potter series, whose dainty teacups and kittened doilies mask an otherwise unrelenting lust for personal empowerment, the civility of the Left is not to be trusted. Every dainty and civil dialogue to which evangelicals have been invited has resulted in further loss of ground. Numbers do not lie. Evangelicals are not the lawnmowers, they are the grass.
If civil dialogue means “do not resist the patterns of erosion,” then civil dialogue is the erosive power’s favorite tool. If civility amounts to “hold still for the lawnmower,” then the grass or grass-roots have every reason, right and purpose in being extremely p.o.’d.
Unless and until Edwards et.al. are willing to say along with the rest of Christianity “God have mercy on us, for we are sinners in need of your justification at any cost,” there can be only thrust and parry. The lost are worth it. Noel Anderson, senior pastor First Presbyterian Church of Upland, Calif.
The universalist tenor of nFOG’s opening lines is apparent
Posted Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Although Dr. Lowry [letter to the editor, posted April 6, 2011] asserts otherwise, the universalist tenor of nFOG’s opening lines is apparent whether one reads nFOG, F-1.01, in its entirety or stops at the first sentence. The word “all” occurs nine times in just 16 lines, beginning with the opening affirmation “that the triune God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – creates, redeems, sustains, rules and transforms all things and all people” (F-1.01).
This statement is anathema to the Reformed faith expressed in The Book of Confessions. Not even the Confession of 1967 can be cited in its defense; for, though “the risen Christ is the Savior for all men,” it is only “those who are joined to Him by faith” that “are set right with God” (C-9.10). Any who “refuse life from” “the risen Lord” remain under “judgment,” and are duly warned: “Against all who oppose Him, God expresses His love in wrath” (C-9.11, 9.14).
NFOG, F-1.01, replaces “the mission of reconciliation to which [God] has called His church” (C-9.06) with “God’s mission for the transformation of creation and humanity” (F-1.01). These are categorically and qualitatively different understandings of “mission.” With God’s reconciling work in Jesus Christ, the first is “the heart of the Gospel in any age” (C-9.06), while the second represents an altogether altered gospel.
“The mission of reconciliation” compels us to “go into all the world and proclaim the Gospel to the whole creation;” in order that, “whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:15-16). The “mission for transformation” propels us into the task of tinkering with systems in order to engender change for the utopian benefit and betterment of the whole of humanity and creation.
Under NFOG, F-1.01, the claims of universal salvation into utopia by our own effort usurp the Gospel call to individual salvation into the kingdom of God through faith in Jesus Christ. Pastor Jim Henkel Colonial Village Presbyterian Church, Niagara Falls, N.Y.
Hoping that Fellowship PCUSA is not more politics but a return to the foundation of Scripture
Posted Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Carmen Fowler’s article on “timing” is one of culture’s conundrums. Most major denominations seem to be more concerned about internal politics rather than the theological foundation. “Reforming – always reforming” does not mean departing from the foundation regardless of cultural reforms. Let’s hope the Fellowship PCUSA open letter is not more politics but a return to the foundation of Scripture. Dawson Watkins
Thousands of faithful Presbyterians understand
same-gender love and commitment to be a good thing
Posted Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Out of all the points made by Charles Jeffery in his letter posted on April 6, 2011 there are two that I feel most compelled to respond to, hoping it will continue our dialogue.
First, Jeffery shares that he has “same-sex attraction.” All that he writes suggests that he considers this a sin and he commends reparative therapies that he has found helpful. I want to remind us all of the voluminous evidence that these therapies have been harmful to lesbian, gay and transgender people – evidence in the form of scientific studies, personal testimony and the experience of one leader after another in these programs whose behavior belies success.
We have the reports of thousands of faithful Presbyterians who understand same-gender love and commitment to be a good thing (and not a sin). They testify that they come to this conclusion on the basis of Scripture, tradition and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Reputable scholars like Jack Rogers, Mark Achtemeier, Arlo Duba and William Stacy Johnson support this view. When there are many views, I hope we can find a way in the church to live together. For Jeffery and others who see things differently, I hope they also take to heart what Paul tells us, “Love does not insist on its own way.” (1 Corinthians 13:4)
Second, I was heartened when Mr. Jeffery writes, “I agree.” Every morning I begin my daily devotions with these words, “God of love, use my hands, my thoughts, my work of this day to share in a communion of love with everyone.” For me, there is no exception, no “but not that one” to that commitment to share in a communion of love. And this arises from the very deepest heart of my faith in the Triune God attested to in Scripture in passages like this one from Isaiah: “For my house shall be called a house of prayer for all people.” (Isaiah 56:8) This compels me to reach out to you all of The Presbyterian Layman.
I am not interested in thrust and parry, which has diminished the PCUSA for far too long. I am interested in honest, heartfelt dialogue, which, as I say, is the living embodiment of the love of God within the Church. So I am glad Jeffery responded to my thoughts and even found places where we agree. I encourage us all to see where those are and then to ponder how we can build upon them.
There is so much more to be said. I trust this has prompted your further thought and comment and I look forward to your response. Peace be with you all. Rev. Dr. Janet Edwards Co-Moderator of More Light Presbyterians
Amendment 10-A is an attempt to change what the Bible teaches about gay lifestyle
Posted Tuesday, April 19, 2011
The Psalm 119:8-9, “Forever O Lord thy word is settled in Heaven,” and Luke 21:33, the words of Jesus, “Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”
Many more Holy Scriptures from the Holy Bible can be cited in opposition Amendment 10-A, however, the delusional faction of the PCUSA is blind to believing the inspiration and authority of the Bible, thus, Amendment 10-A is another attempt to change what the Holy Bible teaches about gay lifestyle.
Many of us know the gay lifestyle is wrong because Holy Scripture teaches the gay lifestyle is wrong, Romans 1 to 3, Psalms 119:8-9 and Luke 21:33 cannot be changed no matter what the liberal side of the PCUSA thinks is right even though you can be right in your own eyes, and wrong Biblically. Lou. S. Nowasielski South Park, Pa.