We must remember to keep one another in our prayers
Posted Friday, July 29, 2011
Thank you Carmen for your timely and thoughtful reminder about healthy and productive dialogue. And thank you also for your gracious call to prayer for the GAPJC on Friday. Whatever our theological or ideological convictions, we are indeed all brothers and sisters in Christ and come what may, we must remember to keep one another in our prayers.
The Reverend Dr. Robert Wm Lowry Interim Pastor, First Presbyterian Church, Batesville, AR
Rethinking Renewal
Posted Friday, July 29, 2011
I am a retired PCUSA Pastor who has seen 45 years of ministry and conflict in the Church.Godly unity among Christians has always been my most basic concern.Now I just want to offer a suggestion for PCUSA related Renewal groups:
Please begin to cooperate in an effective way to help like minded Pastors, Elders and members to find each other in every Presbytery!
My experience in 5 Presbyteries in the North East has demonstrated a real difficulty in locating like minded conservative & evangelical Presbyterian brothers and sisters. But local relationships are necessary before any effective cooperation can occur.
It seems obvious that each of the individual Renewal groups have a mailing list of adherents from every Presbytery, who can be expected to be of evangelical orientation. These individual lists may provide the only existing identification of like minded neighbors that is available anywhere.
Please consider working together to encourage and facilitate a gathering together of the like minded Presbyterians in every Presbytery. Attendees would be persons who can only be contacted through the individual mailing lists. Without sharing the lists, every adherent could be encouraged by their own Renewal group leaders to meet at a designated place and time for a “Christian-Evangelical-Presbyterian Mixer”. Great “Renewal” may follow!
A local person from each Renewal group could be recruited to provide a leadership team to choose a location and agenda. Logistics could be quite simple and left to local initiative. It is quite possible that such a local gathering could have a much more powerful effect than any national meeting.
Recent events in NY State are attributed to the unified action of previously competing Interest groups. That should become a lesson for evangelical Christians about the great necessity of cooperating.
I am sending this note to each Renewal Group that is listed as part of the “Presbyterian Renewal network”, in the hope that it might suggest a new approach, even at this late date.
Rev Richard A. Fox, H.R., Dansville, NY
Off the public stage on onto the sidelines
Posted Friday, July 29, 2011
For over 300 years every County in this country had its own County Home or Parish House which provided food, clothing, shelter, and medical care to anyone in their community who could no longer provide for themselves. These homes received some support from county taxes, but their primary support came from local churches, service organizations, and volunteerism. This straight forward and very affordable public safety net can easily be reestablished throughout the country.
Congress introduced entitlements and simultaneously legislated against the County Home/Perish House system to drive them out of business. This was one of the many high visibility services Christian Churches performed for out society, which helped raise their visibility and attracted many visitors, many of whom became church members. They used the IRS, political legislation, and entitlements to drive the churches off the public stage and onto the sidelines.
From the beginning Entitlements were designed specifically for the purpose of enslaving a large group of voters who would support Congress’ Socialist agenda. Now only about .1% of the population needed help from the homes. Congress wanted a lot more voters permanently trapped in Entitlements. To expand the numbers they immediately set about including those who could easily take care of themselves but were willing to let the government do it instead of working and supporting themselves. To encourage more people to sign on to Welfare, Congress imposed Minimum Wage to destroy as man low end jobs as possible thus ensuring those trapped on Welfare wouldn’t have the option to work to support themselves. To fill the vacuum created by all these workers leaving the workforce, they repealed our long standing and very successful Guest Worker Program with Mexico, thereby creating the Illegal Immigrant problem (off the books cheap labor). Eventually Congress was able to permanently enslave about 5% of our entire population on their Welfare Plantation. This was done knowingly and intentionally, while the cowardly useless leadership of the Christian Churches in this country stood by quietly hoping and praying the government wouldn’t attack and destroy their peaceful pastoral livelihood.
PCUSA is now an integral part of that evil God hating, America hating, National Democratic Socialist movement. You ‘all must be SO PROUD!
Sincerely,
Glen C. Simmons San Clemente, CA
Presbyterian issues are identical to those being faced by Episcopalians
Posted Friday, July 29, 2011
Hello. I just wanted to let you know that the article that I just read “Can Two Faiths Embrace One Future” is most excellent. To all who authored and edited that document, well done! Well done! Well done!
I grew up a cradle Episcopalian. In late 1998, the Lord really got a hold of me – through the conviction of sin. Is not that how the Holy Spirit makes you aware that you need rescuing, i.e., need Jesus Christ? In a hurry, my eyes were opened so to speak as to what was happening in the Episcopal Church on a local level, national level and international level. After much effort as a layman on my part, I realized that I (and my family) could no longer be a part of that denomination. The Lord provided remarkable openings though, which led to my very active involvement in the Anglican Mission in America on mostly a local level.
After several years with the AMiA in a local church plant and the toll that was taking on my wife and her concern over youth ministry for our young boys, we gradually became involved at a PCUSA church in Austin. I knew the exact same battle was raging within PCUSA, but I satisfied myself that the then senior pastor and the mature lay leaders and youth leaders were faithful Christians, boldly proclaiming and teaching Christ crucified. I also estimated that PCUSA on a national level was about a decade behind the alien religion movements taking over the Episcopal Church.
Just recently – as a result of 10a – I have become more knowledgeable about the specifics of PCUSA – its order and beliefs and how that is affecting the local church I attend. Bottom line, however, the battle is identical to the Episcopal Church issues.
Almost all of the themes and arguments that have entered my mind over the last many years are captured by this amazing article. I am very grateful for the work of the authors.
Finally, I had never heard of Parker Williamson until I watched some interviews of three of my Anglican heroes on Anglican TV: retired bishops Bill Wantland, Fitz Allison, and Alec Dickson. Bishop Allison complimented Parker Williamson during one of his interviews. That reference led me to discover your web page.
God’s peace,
Bill Hemphill, Jr. Austin, Texas
You are God’s chosen instrument of grace
Posted Friday, July 29, 2011
My Sister Carmen,
God is calling us to repentance. God is calling us to holiness. God is calling us to worship.
My prayer is for you as you live each day of your life, through a personal attitude of holiness
and worship, and if necessary, repentance. You are God’s chosen instrument of grace, and mercy, and encouragement. My prayers will stay with you.
“Oh come, let us worship and bow down; let us kneel before the Lord our Maker. For He is our God …” (Psalm 95:6-7a)
Rick Ogletree
My bell has been rung
Posted Friday, July 29, 2011
For some time now I have been listening to a crescendo of “bells” ringing out from various places inside an entity called “The Clinton Presbyterian Church.” At once from the pulpit, at times from various leaders and from a newsletter entitled “The Bell Ringer.”
Sometimes these choruses have been refreshing, but others very disturbing, with the latter coming from a place in the church that had traditionally represented authority in the church, and that authority accepted across all denomination, being the pastor. Strangely though the pastor claims in the July/August 2011 “From the Pastor’s Pen” that this authority, or to use her word “hierarchy” doesn’t even really exist. “There is no real hierarchy in the Presbyterian Church.”
Well on the basis of some of Paul’s words which I remind both writer and reader of, let me test her words and the reality of their context. In 2 Cor 3:17 in the second half of the verse we read “and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty.” Then in Psalm 116:8-10 the Psalmist declares his thankfulness to the Lord for His bountiful kindness in delivering the Psalmist soul from death and his eyes from tears and his feet from falling; therefore, he declares before the congregation that he will walk before The Lord in the land of the living, ie the true congregation of The Lord, and in verse ten states his authority for speaking to The Lord’s people, “I believed therefore I have spoken.” This verse Paul quotes in 2 Cor 4:13 as his authority for speaking. Note please that he uses the pronoun “we” in connection with 2 Cor 3:17 as the only authority for a believer to address God’s Church.
Now as an aside concerning leadership: in Ephesians 1:22-23, Paul again tells us that “God the Father hath put all things under His (Jesus) feet, and gave Him to be head over all things in the Church, which is His body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.” Tell me, those of you who believe the living word of the living God, does not this sound like a very real and “imposing” leader (john 10:27) and who in fact has a singular and unique claim to do so?
Also, in Eph 2:10 where we read, “For we are His (God the Father) workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” Now I ask again a second time of those of you who believe in the living word of The Living God, does this verse leave any wiggle room for man in any way, shape or form to “evolve” either good works of any kind or “form of government?”
I would suggest to you that the only reason for the change of foggy viewing conditions is so that the persons seated in the pew are unaware that the changes being made in the church are those which dishonor The Lord God, and put the members to sleep with terms that no longer carry the same meaning that you have been taught originally thus leading you into what 2 Thes 2:3 calls “a falling away” or apostasy. In addition, in passing “Amendment 10A” thus guaranteeing the ordination of gays and lesbians into church pulpits and other leadership positions you are actina as if by human voting, you can both change the word of God (see Mark 7:6-9) and call it a new work of The Holy Spirit. Have you never read Psalm 119:89 or James 1:17?
Now the “bell ringer” of July/August 2011 assures us in “introducing a new column to this newsletter” which the pastor cavalierly calls “Presbyterian 101” as if addressing with such an innocuous title a “progressive” college class instead of “the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” I Tim 3:15. Incidentally, the preceding verse gives us the reason for God to address His Church, “That thou mayest know how thou oughest to behave thyself.” This is not P-101!
Now the four individuals she refers us to as our Teachers in class 1 of her new column are Cindy Bolbach, Gradye Parsons, Linda Valentine and Landon Whitsitt. All persons who are familiar names to faithful readers of “The Presbyterian Layman,” some more prominent than others. Their actions, many put in writings published as so cannot be denied are very clearly those who have an agenda which is persistently and completely against those in the church who would honor the Word of God after Psalm 138:2 “For Thou hast magnified Thy Word above all Thy name.”
In fact, Gradye Parsons is in print together with another former “high official” in the General Assembly, Clifton Kirkpatrick as stating that current church leaders should begin to push the church in both confessing to and asking for forgiveness for the sin of keeping gays and lesbians from the pulpit for so long. I suggest you carefully and prayerfully read Romans 1:18-32.
Our God is not doing something new by His Holy Spirit in the Church outside of making “new creations in Christ Jesus” 2 Cor 5:17. Certainly not The God who says in Psalm 119:89, “Forever O Lord Thy Word is settled in heaven.” Or “of whom is it said there is no variableness neither shadow of turning,” James 1:17.
In class 101 lesson 1 these four tell us the following: “many Presbyterians will see nothing suddenly or dramatically different with a new form of government. Worship services will go on as usual and congregations will continue to teach faith, serve their communities, reach out to those in need, and work to further God’s realm on earth.” But whose faith? And work that advances whose sense of God’s realm?
They go on: “However, what will be different is that congregations, presbyteries and synods will have the opportunity to tailor mission and ministry to fit their own particular contexts and challenges.” How about this statement? What wisdom! What honesty! Here they have just admitted that now in God’s church, each congregation can do their own thing. This is exactly what they Word of God said man was doing in the time we read of in Judges 21:25 “In those days there was no King in Israel,” no authority, “every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”
On the other hand what these four are teaching in class 101 lesson 1 is not what Paul command us in 2 Thes 2:15, “Therefore brethren, stand fast and hold to the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word or our epistle.” Or, as in 2 Thes 3:6, “Now we command you brethren in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.”
This slow, feeling deadening, sleep inducing process that these four apostles of change suggest to us will produce a people who like frogs sitting comfortably in water, do not notice the increasing heat till all is too late. Beloved do not remain in such a pot!
Now in “The Bell Ringer” June 2011 we are told “change” is good even though we don’t like it. In fact the same “pen” tells us that its author “relishes” and “looks forward” to such. Then “the pen” tries to slip in a deceit. We are told that “nFOG” (and the likes of Amendment 10A both voted in) are changes made by the Holy Spirit.
In John 16:13 we read “Howbeit when The Spirit of truth is come He will guide you into all truth.” And the next verse, “He (Spirit of Truth) shall glorify me (Jesus speaking) for He shall receive of Mine and shall shew it unto you.” In between these words after guiding us into all truth we see the following words, “for He shall not speak for Himself but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak and He will show you things to come.”
Some of what the Holy Spirit will show us of what He has seen is found in 1 Cor 6:9-11 where we hear “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the Kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”
Yes, beloved, change is in view, two changes. On the one hand the true work of The Holy Spirit is producing in the true child of faith the work of faith which shows the justifying work of God in the real believer. But the other change which is in view is not the changed believer, but rather the unbeliever changing the false church to be like him, a change he can believe in. This is the change which represents the falling away in 2 Thes 2-3 or 2 Tim 4:3, “not enduring sound doctrine.” This is never the work of The Holy Spirit, it is the work of the one who is called the deceiver, the one who was a liar from the beginning. Do not buy into such nonsense.
Also appearing in the June 2011 issue under the heading Session, “the Bell Ringer” tells us that nFOG will be an improved form of government. I submit just the opposite will result. In an article appearing in The Layman Online, you can read a very careful and thorough analysis of the nFOG by Michael Herrin. Information is knowledge. It is not good to operate in the dark. In Michael’s article, he tells us about an agreement to study nFOG and Amendment 10A and then give a report to the whole church. Funny thing though, the report concerning what will authorize gay and lesbian ordination was to be given on July 11, 2012, after the house was already out of the barn. Why is it so important for the church to be given “the bums rush” to pass on a new unbiblical direction for the church to take and all this for most members to be kept in the dark? How deceitful is such a practice?
In Hebrews 12:2 we read that Jesus is the author and finisher of faith. Also in I John 1:5 we hear, “God is light and in Him is no darkness.” In John 3:20-21 we read that men love darkness rather than light but “he hath loveth truth cometh to the light that his deeds may be made manifest that they are wrought in God.”
If there are any of you that have trouble understanding these thoughts, well let me help, truth loves light, sin and evil seek the cover of darkness. Can it be any more plain? Read again I John 1:5, “this then is the message which we have heard of Him and declare unto you (without changing): that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.” Then, as a lover of my soul whom I will one day stand before, 2 Cor 5:10, continues to express to us in 1 John 1:6, “If we say that we have no fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth.”
Can you see from these verses clearly the change the word of God presents to us and the direction we are to seek to go? Dear ones, there is no such new work by the Holy Spirit overriding previously declared Scripture that opens the door to service in God’s house that God has shut to practicing gays and lesbians; behavior which God has already called sin. Read I Kings 15:11-12 and add to the faithful passage Hebrews 13:8, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today and forever.”
It is no accident that most of you are in the dark concerning the leanings of the denomination concerning these subjects we have been discussing and will remain so expect what is presented according to the agenda of most of the leaders of the church. You will be fed on a diet of Presbyterian 101, teaching that is not light but contrary to God’s Word and therefore, darkness.
Now beloved, I close this letter and leave its results with The Lord of Glory. I do not pass these comments without being aware of tremendous opposition. I am under no illusions as to results but have written this letter under a great burden.
I have been blessed by The Lord to have both seen and made in grace to become a member, not of some denomination, but of the only true Church, the body of Christ. The Bible is full of truth and guidance, read it and be blessed.
Jon Slater Annandale, NJ
Living in no-man’s-land
Posted Friday, July 29, 2011
For over thirty years now I have been held in a no-man’s-land between the Presbytery of Middle Tennessee, PCUSA, and First Presbyterian Church, Nashville, which placed slanderous false testimony and action against myself on public record as I stood as both an Evangelical ministerial candidate (PCUS) and a non-separatist member of First Church under a schismatic senior minister who eventually went to the PCA with several hundred of our people. Both entities, local church and presbytery, claim it is the other which is responsible for my situation, and over the years five sets of documentation explicating my situation have disappeared into the woodwork of the local church and presbytery, because this is now for both a matter of liability, handled by church politics and lawyers, not any concern for myself and my family, or truth. I was attacked, and delayed by two years, in the middle of my doctoral work at Vanderbilt University, which finally produced three postgraduate degrees (M.Div., M.A., Ph.D). I’ve earned a total of $40.00 with my doctorate, with an article in a Southern Baptist Adult Sunday School publication, over which a friend was the editor. I’m retired now, after working twenty-two years for the State of Tennessee. The charges against me were that slanderous. My considered judgment is that I worked in general with a better sort of people in State employment, than I ever encountered in the PCUS/PCUSA, notwithstanding that some of my own Vanderbilt teachers, even, reside in my presbytery. The local church’s evident intent is to be abusive enough for me to voluntarily leave, (which my onetime ministerial candidate adviser told me never to do) and the presbytery, from the beginning, just didn’t want Evangelicals, however qualified or mild mannered, in its membership.
The Layman has been appraised of this situation over the years, without any response. This has disappointed me, and it’s been suggested that such nonsupport was because a PCA bound senior minister was involved, and the Layman has covertly supported separatists. I hope this was not the case. Of course today, everything has now changed, with a church order very few Evangelicals could support–maybe people like Jack Rogers at Fuller, who has written a positive book on LGBT issues–but very few Evangelicals generally. And, many of our ordinary people are not going to tolerate a joyous LGBT identity in their faces, and the diminished sessions’ powers, whatever their understanding of the bedrock Biblical and theological issues, which we are now clearly compromising.
I was constructively involved in the late 1970s with an effort toward Evangelical representation at Vanderbilt. Those efforts produced absolutely no results, as Vanderbilt Divinity School didn’t want Evangelicals except on its own terms, which is that of only liberal professors explicating orthodox Christian tradition, although Jewish professors explicate Judaism, Roman Catholic professors explicate Catholicism, and Islamic professors explicate Islam. But Vanderbilt, on exactly these terms, has had a very cozy relationship with the Presbytery of Middle Tennessee, and Vanderbilt’s Evangelical students, unless they enter with strong belief and practice, and maintain their faith, are relatively unlikely to leave with it, but that has never been a problem for my presbytery. Especially since the merger, it just doesn’t want Evangelicals of any flavor–Confessional, Charismatic, Mainline, more generally Evangelical, whatever. This has not been exactly constitutional from the beginning, but both courts, my local session (of a wealthy conservative-traditionalist) church, and my presbytery, just do what they want. Thirty years ago even this was not the “behavior” of a true church of Jesus Christ in the Reformed tradition, and today, these entities are simply in whole not functioning Church of Jesus Christ, although I have much more hope for my local church reviving and reforming than for the presbytery.
I could not be ordained today in such an entity, even if that were possible, as I am a Christian “monument” in Catholic theologian Yves Congar’s terms, and my liberally dominated politicized church/Church is not. That’s why no grace is flowing from it, without which Church and churches die. I’m amazed, in fact, that we STILL HAVE ten seminaries! But perhaps from them, as from the liberalism that preceeded Karl Barth’s “conversion,” something may yet arise and shine again as the light of the Gospel. Luther, at least, not to mention mere law student of self-interest John Calvin, rose against the background of tough times.
Dr. James Hedstrom
Appeal for prayer on GAPJC cases
Posted Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Dear Brothers and Sisters in the PCUSA Family:
On July 29, 2011 , the appeals in the remedial cases of Parnell v San Francisco Presbytery and Caledonia v. John Knox Presbytery will be heard by the GAPJC in Louisville. Both cases deal with ordination decisions at odds with Constitutional and Scriptural standards.
In the Parnell matter, the PJC Case Committee requested a supplemental brief on whether the case is moot because of recently passed Amendment 10-A.
The complainants’ submission, which argues: the case regarding the approval of Lisa Larges’ ordination under G-6.0106b is not mooted by 10-A because 10-A does not present a new standard. Both the original G-6 and the new 10-A refer to the source of the fidelity/chastity standard— the Scriptures— which have not changed.
What is at issue is nothing less than whether the PCUSA still acknowledges Scripture as the “only true guide to faith and practice” (G-1.0307). The question is presented starkly: does the Scripture’s prohibition of homosexual relationships still guide our ordination standards?
The presbyteries in both cases argue the meaning of Scripture is obscure and that it is not the purview of the Commission to impose the single, unchanging interpretation suggested by the complainants.
The Commission’s decision is expected to be released by August 3. There is concern the Commission may seek to avoid controversy by issuing a narrow opinion that only applies to G-6.0106 and does not consider 10-A, or one based on esoteric procedural grounds. These options are only available if Presbyterians don’t understand their implication. Let’s be clear: if the Commission does anything other than boldly declare that Scripture’s requirement for fidelity in heterosexual marriage or chastity in singleness is clear and binding on the church, it implicitly is upholding the opposite; the Commission will be saying that Scripture no longer guides us; that it no longer is binding on the church. Anything other than a clear declaration in favor of the authority and application of the revealed Word of God is a declaration against it.
Pray for case counsel Rev. Mary Holder Naegeli and elders Bruce McIntosh and Whit Brisky, as they present the two cases on Friday. Pray also for the commissioners that they will understand that upholding the clear mandate of Scripture regarding sexual ethics is not only their obligation and duty, but their spiritual act of worship.
Rev. Rick Carter, a PCUSA pastor in New Jersey, has a good analysis of the meaning of the possible outcomes of this case and more information about the Parnell case can found at www.pcusastandards.org.
Mary Naegeli and Bruce McIntosh San Francisco
Stand reflects desire to follow the call of Christ
Posted Wednesday, July 27, 2011
My Sister Carmen,
Your article that discussed your decision to be faithful to the teachings of God’s Word, as it relates to sexual purity within the ministry, was very good. I commend you for taking such a stand, that reflects your desire to follow the call of Christ in a way that will also show honor to the teachings of scripture on moral and sexual discipline. My prayers will stay with you.
Mt 25:40
Rick Ogletree Founding Pastor, “Unto The Least Of These”, Statesboro, Georgia
Misleading information
Posted Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Friends in Christ,
I was very disappointed in your article on the Rev. Cliff Mansley and the New Creation Presbyterian Church in Joplin, MO.
You are very critical of much going on in the PCUSA. You do nothing similar when it comes to the EPC or the PCA. Your columns are very quiet regarding their issues.
In your June article, you give no indication that the Rev. Mansley and Creation Presbyterian Church belong to the EPC. So the assumption of many PCUSA Presbyterians would be that their contributions will be sent to a PCUSA minister and congregation.
Were you aware of this issue? I certainly hope this misleading information was unintentional.
Editor’s reply:
Mr. Menzel, thank you for your letter. The article links directly to the Web site of new Creation Presbyterian Church which clearly indicates that it is a mission church of the EPC. Also, the Presbyterian churches from Illinois featured in the article are PCUSA congregations. This is a great example of churches setting aside their denominational differences to do good together. It did not seem relevant to make denominational distinctions in the face of the devastation people were experiencing in Joplin.
Dick Menzel Willard, MO
A letter about Letters to the Editor
Posted Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Dear Editor,
I was reminded yesterday (July 25) that letters to the editor can sometimes appear like tennis matches and that a review of the etiquette and ground-rules is in order.
In the printed edition of The Layman the Letters Policy (page 15) reads: “The Layman welcomes letters and commentaries from readers. Letters and commentaries are selected for publication based on their clarity and brevity, subject to editing, and also are chosen to represent a diverse set of views on as many issues as possible. These letters and commentaries are provided as an informational service and do not necessarily indicate an endorsement by The Layman or the Presbyterian Lay Committee. All letters must be signed and include a day-time telephone number for verification.”
Beyond the policy, it’s helpful to be reminded that that letters to the editor exist to: 1. provide a forum for public comment or debate, and 2. give readers an opportunity to express an individual opinion or point of view not covered in the referenced article. However, they are not meant to be used by individuals to make personal attacks.
When writing a letter to the editor:
· BE TIMELY: Write your letter within a day or two of the article’s date.
· INCLUDE CONTACT INFORMATION: Include your full name, city, state, church, email address, and phone #. Anonymous letters will not be printed.
· BE CLEAR, CONCISE and ACCURATE: Make one main point. Remember that short letters (1-3 paragraphs) show confidence in your position and factual errors betray your ignorance. If you make reference to another letter to the editor, include the writer’s formal name and the date their letter appeared.
· SHOW RESPECT: Avoid personal attacks. The classical definition of tolerance will be upheld: all ideas are not equal but all people are equal. Keep your comments focused on the ideas and content of the letter you are rebutting and avoid making personal comments about the writer.
· PROOFREAD: Re-read your letter. Check for grammar and spelling mistakes. If possible, ask another person to read your letter for accuracy and clarity. This is NOT the job of the editor to whom you send your letter. Your letter will be posted and/or printed with typographical, grammatical and syntactical errors which is a reflection on you as the writer.
· DON’T CALL THE PAPER IF YOUR LETTER IS NOT PRINTED: The paper reserves the right to print or not print any letter or portion of a letter it receives. The Editor has the full authority to edit your letter to conform to The Layman’s guidelines.
· A LETTER TO THE EDITOR IS NOT YOUR PERSONAL BLOG: If you attempt to use the Letters to the Editor section of a paper’s Web site as your personal blog, you will likely forfeit the opportunity to have anything you send posted. The Editor has the full and final authority to make such determinations.
In your email to laymanletters@www.layman.org use the following format:
SUBJECT: Letter to the Editor
Begin your email with heading that helps the editor “sort” through the material that arrives every day. Clearly identify which article you are referencing and the date of its publication or posting. Your heading should reference the person’s formal name and the date the article or letter appeared. Your closing should include your full name, church, city, state, and phone number. Your phone number will not be printed but is necessary for the news organization to have on file for follow-up.
Thanks for reading the Layman.org and for sending letters to the editor.
Carmen Fowler LaBerge Executive Editor, The Layman and Layman.org, Lenoir, NC
All officers to review/renew ordination vows?
Posted Monday, July 25, 2011
In your blog you mentioned that all ordained officers would be required to renew their ordination vows. In my mind, this would be a very large issue for many people. Can you point me to something in the new form of government that makes this requirement? I have looked without success.
Thank you.
Editor’s response: Mr. Allen, thank you for the question. I first want to applaud that you’ve read the new Form of Government. I also want to point out that the 2011-2013 is now available for free download from the denomination’s “store.”
To your question: I believe that if the PCUSA system of governance is going to have any integrity whatsoever, all those who have agreed to serve in leadership, certainly all those who are ordained, necessarily need to review those commitments in light of our new constitution.
I used the word “requirement” to indicate that no one can legitimately keep a vow to a constitution they have not read and no one can by expected to govern a church by a form of government they do not know. To me that means that in order to maintain good order, every officer is going to have read, study, be examined on and commit themselves anew to upholding, abiding by and leading according to the new constitution. Anything less our current crisis will only be further exacerbated.
Carmen Fowler LaBerge, Executive Editor
Pete Allen First Presbyterian Church, Mesquite, TX
I hear your heart for God
Posted Monday, July 25, 2011
Dear Carmen,
Hard, eloquent words that are full of grace and truth. Your letter in The Layman is what your brothers and sisters need to hear, and our Lord willing, will continue to hear from many more in the PCUSA.
As an Anglican who has been through (going through) what you are, I hear your heart for God and want you to know that you are taking the right path. May God have mercy on the PCUSA and grant His grace to all who call upon His name in truth. May His grace enable you to come together on your knees and align yourselves with His revealed Word. And, if not, may He grant you grace to “cut it off”, referring to Jesus’ words regarding the hand which causes you to sin.
I pray that will not be necessary.
Roy Batterman Jacksonville, FL
Our denomination has changed the rules
Posted Monday, July 25, 2011
This letter is in response to Dr. Lowry (July 14). Dr. Lowry, you seem to contrast your behavior at the time when you first started seminary and were in disagreement with the PC(USA) over ordination issues with the reaction of conscience by those of us who are in opposition to the recent changes in ordination standards. You also seem to view your behavior in some way as more honorable.
You say: “What I did not do was leave the denomination because it did something with which I disagreed. I did not reject my colleagues who held opinions different than mine. Instead I chose to stay in the church, to be subject to its discipline and order and work for change within. “
I believe you have overlooked a fundamental difference in the two situations. In your seminary illustration, you had willingly joined a denomination knowing its policy on ordination. That policy had been in effect as a basic understanding within the broad denominational tradition for hundreds of years. (One might argue that the policy was only codified within the last century, but that was because prior to that time, it was inconceivable to the church that anyone would even consider such a deplorable course of action, and so there was no need to set a policy.)
Furthermore, that policy was not unique to the Presbyterian church, but had a consistent historical precedent across broad denominational and religious traditions. You knew the denomination you embraced. Of course you didn’t “leave the denomination because it did something with which (you) disagreed,” because the denomination had done nothing except hold to its historic standards. It had never changed. It was you whose conscience was never in line with the denominational standards to begin with.
In contrast, we who joined the PC(USA) under one set of precepts, which we prayerfully considered and affirmed, find that our denomination has changed the rules. Furthermore, it has changed its “interpretation” of the Authority upon which we had all agreed to base the rules. There is a very big difference between leaving a denomination that refuses to change to conform with your opinions (as a fallen creature) and a denomination that makes a radical change away from doctrinal foundations based on the Word of God, to which we had all formally submitted. The fact that you joined the denomination without agreeing in your own mind does not release you from the responsibility of having formally assented to its doctrine. I do not see any moral superiority in your having stayed with the denomination. Actually, I see it as a duplicitous action on your part to have knowingly vowed to uphold a doctrine to which you knew you could not adhere, and to then work to subvert the denominational policies from within. If you believed we were apostate in our policies when you joined, yours was the sin in joining us. Those who believe that the denomination has become apostate can reasonably conclude they must leave. The two situations are far from analogous.
Martha E. Leatherman Elder, St. Andrew Presbyterian Church
Playing ping-pong against a wall of pudding
Posted Monday, July 25, 2011
This will be my last response to Janet Edwards (July 20). In Titus 3:9-11, the apostle Paul admonishes his charge to “…avoid stupid controversies,…for they are unprofitable and futile. As for a person who is factious, after admonishing him/her once or twice, have nothing more to do with him/her….”
My experience of attempted dialogue with Janet feels like trying to play ping pong against a wall of pudding. You hit the ball and expect it to come back, but it never does. The harder you hit it, the quicker it disappears. Points of biblical truth and formal logic get swallowed up in abstruse muck and never reappear. So this last letter will simply highlight a few of these truths before they vanish on the other side of the net.
In her July 20 letter, Janet refers to a prior letter where she shared her “…interpretation of a few passages in order to remind us that there is more than one faithful perspective on Scripture.” A number of us attempted to show her the exegetical and logical fallacies of her interpretation of Genesis 2:24 and Isaiah 43:18-19. The ping pong balls disappeared into the pudding. Instead of dialogue with us, Janet simply claims in her next letter that hers is another faithful perspective on Scripture. The claim rings hollow. I find her language illuminating. Most biblical scholars look for the intended meaning of a text; that is, what the author was intending to get across to readers. Most of the time, this is easy to discern if one pays attention to the text and attempts to suspend personal biases. Occasionally, with a difficult text, two or more potential interpretations may equally make good sense of the textual evidence. Usually, the larger context and parallel texts in other passages help us discern the most likely meaning. The key presupposition behind this enterprise is the belief that the author had one particular message we are meant to learn. But Janet refuses to speak of the author’s intended meaning – instead, she talks of “more than one faithful perspective on Scripture.” Here, it seems, we are no longer dealing with truth, but with “perspectives” that are faithful. The word “perspective” intimates that we cannot know the real meaning of the text, only a particular angle which makes sense to us. Janet comforts herself by saying that her perspective is faithful, but I ask: faithful to what? And what standards do you use to determine that it is faithful to whatever you think it should be faithful to? I see mounds of pudding here.
Janet seems particularly allergic to the notion of absolute truth: “I do not share my views to wrestle to a conclusion where there is a winner and a loser. That is not doing justice, loving kindness or walking humbly with God.” I believe she is completely wrong about this. If God has indeed declared His moral will and warned of a coming judgment, then for us to know that truth but to fail to enforce it in our faith community is to fail to do justice. For us to refrain from pleading with those openly engaged in sin to try to convince them to repent and avoid eternal judgment would be a contradiction of lovingkindness. For us to proclaim as truth something that God in His revelation has declared to be false would be a vain attempt to show ourselves wiser than God (see Heidelberg 4.098), the opposite of walking humbly with our God. Jesus and Paul both engaged in seeking to persuade their hearers of truth over against falsehood, right over against wrong. As Janet declares her desire to walk faithfully with Jesus, I would urge her to rethink her position.
Janet declares that unless we learn how to put up with each other (liberal and conservative, particularly), our denomination is doomed: “Mutual forbearance is a spiritual discipline we must exercise in the PCUSA or we will die.” She is right that we all as Christians need to bear with one another in love (see Eph 4:2 and Col 3:12-14), but she is wrong in how she applies this. Mutual forbearance has to do with our willingness to forgive one another for behavioral and attitudinal offenses. It is never used for toleration of falsehood or evil. To argue that truth should walk in partnership with falsehood is deeply misguided. He who is the Truth didn’t seek to befriend or even “understand” the father of lies; instead, He condemned him. One of the toxic activities killing the PCUSA is precisely that which Janet advocates – placing truth and falsehood on the same level (simply different perspectives that need to be tolerated), and seeking to keep them in partnership. The two cannot coexist; truth and falsehood cannot “be one” — something must give. Our denomination is reeling from this battle.
Janet declares her desire to be faithful to Christ and to watch for the moving of the Holy Spirit in the world. I believe her. My question is: how do you know whether you are being faithful to Christ or not (how do you discern the mind of Christ, especially if you are proposing something that the vast majority of the catholic church has rejected as opposed to His mind)? And what do you see as signs or evidence that the Spirit is moving? Are your criteria in these matters subjective, or do you depend on the full teachings of the Scripture? Since as Jeremiah says, “The heart is deceitful above all things,” to base your sense of faithfulness on your own interpretation of “love” or “spirituality” is an extremely dangerous approach.
Lastly, Janet thinks that all I can see in her is veiled hypocrisy or culpable blindness. That is not true. My assessment was not of her as a person, but rather of her approach to us as the object of her dialogue, or as I’ve concluded, of her pudding rhetoric. My hope is that whichever of the two is true, God will set her free of that condition, and enable her to embrace the whole counsel of God. Until that time, I will pray, but no longer engage in stupid controversies.
Mateen Elass Edmond, Okla