March 2011: When sin and righteousness embrace one another, sin wins

When sin and righteousness embrace one another, sin wins

Posted Thursday, March 31, 2011

It is one thing to engage in a respectful debate on one’s faith. [Re: Janet Edwards’ letter to the editor, posted March 25, 2011] .It is quite another matter to give credence to a position that stands in clear violation of both the letter and the spirit of Scripture.

When sin and righteousness embrace one another, sin always wins. The script for such a unity banquet is found in the Old Testament. In the first act everyone is singing and dancing. In the final scene the consuming wrath of God descends with a vengeance. It is not a party you want to attend.

The proponents of liberal theology have a plan — call for dialog and inclusion while they are in the minority and then force conformity once they are in control. It has served them well. Those who stay and fight will soon be passively serving these new masters.

Having been kicked out of the Garden of Eden, we face unwelcomed choices. In this case, do we cling to our historic sanctuary and our property? Does obedience to God’s law require that we put our salary, our pensions and our property at risk? Must the Christian life always be so difficult? And the answer is a resounding “Yes!”

These are hard times but God is in control and whatever comes our way is part of a good plan. And what that says to us today is that the pension and the property are really not all that important.

Perhaps God is saying that denominations as they presently function have served their purpose and need to be restructured. Perhaps He has allowed this terrible disaster to befall the PCUSA to force us out of our comfort zone and into action. And just perhaps, emboldened by His presence, and in a bold leap of our faith, we will summon the courage to glorify Him before a needy and faithless world. Whatever, God is saying something important and we need to be listening. Like Joshua, we need to choose.

When the role is called up yonder, what will we lay before the throne? A brick from our beloved and empty sanctuary? A check stub from a now useless retirement fund? Or perhaps the Word of God believed and lived out in our lives. For which of these will we risk it all? John Cowan Cartersville, Ga.

---

Adopting examination guidelines is not unconstitutional

Posted Wednesday, March 30, 2011

In response to Michael Herrin [letter to the editor, posted March 29, 2011]

I appreciate what Michael Herrin took the time to share regarding my recent letter.  I concur with his findings in general regarding Bush et al v. Presbytery of Pittsburgh.  However, I don’t feel those findings apply to what I said in my letter.  I was not calling for and did not advise that sessions or presbyteries announce ahead of time how they will act regarding an examination for ordination or for transfer of a pastor already ordained to another presbytery.  That would in fact not hold up in court according to Bush.

I’m simply advising that sessions and presbyteries adopt the current wording of G-6.0106b as that which they will use to guide them in those aforementioned examinations.  That is not to declare or anticipate ahead of time any future outcomes.  It is only to say what the guidelines would be.

It is also not unconstitutional to adopt that wording now.  Currently it isn’t a rewrite of the constitution. It’s a direct quotation from the constitution.  Then, if Amendment 10-A passes, those words of the current G-6.0106b will be gone from the constitution and using them after passage of 10-A would not be a rewrite of 10-A, but rather would be guidelines permissible under the wording of Amendment 10-A.

Before I sent my letter to The Layman, I discussed it at length with the Department of Constitutional Services and was told that nothing I was considering in my letter was unconstitutional.  Simply adopting examination guidelines which are permissible under a pre or post Amendment 10-A constitution is all I was suggesting sessions and presbyteries consider doing in that part of the letter.  I was not suggesting anything that would violate Bush.  I guess the only way to actually test it is through a court case which I’d prefer never to see. John McWilliams

---

In response to John McWilliams

Posted Tuesday, March 29, 2011

I don’t mean to be disagreeable, but there is one point about the polity of the PCUSA that needs to be made in light of John McWilliams’ otherwise admirable letter, posted on March 25.

He writes:  “As written, nothing in 10-A would prevent a session or presbytery from adopting as their future guidelines for ordination, the exact same words currently found in G-6.0106b.   It would be my suggestion that if 10-A passes, sessions and presbyteries who were against 10-A should immediately vote to adopt the current wording of G-6.0106b as their standards for ordination.”  Mr. McWilliams is correct to say that nothing in Amendment 10-A would prevent sessions and presbyteries from adopting a particular standard of ordination.  But such an action would not, in fact, be constitutional according to the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission (GAPJC).

In Bush et al v. Presbytery of Pittsburgh (Remedial Case 218-10), the GAPJC says that presbyteries and sessions may not say ahead of time that they will in fact enforce certain parts of the constitution, even where it comes to examining candidates for ordination:  “Restatements of the Book of Order, in whatever form they are adopted, are themselves an obstruction to the same standard of constitutional governance no less than attempts to depart from mandatory provisions.”  This is because, according to Bush, such restatements imply that specific standards can, in fact, be neglected or ignored.

And so, Bush requires the standards of the church to be applied to candidates only on a case-by-case basis.  “It is not permissible for a presbytery or a session to define ‘essentials of Reformed faith and polity’ outside of the examination of any candidate for office. Such a determination must be made only in the context of a specific examination of an individual candidate.”

In short, even if presbyteries or sessions want to make a blanket statement that they will not ordain anyone who engages in homosexual behavior, making such a statement is not currently constitutional. Michael Herrin, Stated Clerk Presbytery of Mississippi

---

Coastal Carolina Presbytery was faithful to the Scriptures

Posted Tuesday, March 29, 2011

I want to thank my minister and elder colleagues of the Coastal Carolina Presbytery for affirming what the Bible teaches and what the Church universal has taught for over 2,000 years.  I was born and raised in this presbytery, and I love it dearly.  I am so proud that the presbyters followed God’s Word and stood firmly for the “fidelity and chastity” clause in our constitution.  Even as the numbers appear to show that the voting in the denomination will go the other way, Coastal Carolina was faithful to the Scriptures.  I have grieved so about the direction our denomination is taking, but Saturday’s vote is like the balm of Gilead.  From the bottom of my heart I thank you, brothers and sisters in Christ.
Reverend Patricia Slomanski Benson, N.C.

---

Paul, diversity and 10-A

Posted Tuesday, March 29, 2011

The Bible is a story of relationships — individual relationships yes — but more importantly the evolving relationship of humankind with God. Throughout the Bible relationships evolved toward unlimited acceptance and unconditional love shown by Jesus, despite the “laws.” No one will argue that we are saved by grace and not by acts. Yet it is over acts and definitions that we have chosen to define and limit our relationship with God. Over the millennia that relationship has grown and continues to grow and unfold each and every day of our lives. God is unchanging yet our understanding of this eternal relationship with God continues to evolve. In closing our minds to the unfolding will of God and rejecting out of hand ever new inspiration for an unfolding creation, we commit Bilblidolatry.

When we place definitions and limitations in our Book of Order we place limitations on our understanding of the unfolding relationship with God. We are in fact choosing to make decisions in the name of God based on our limited human understanding.

I choose not to pretend to know the mind nor ultimate purpose of God. If a person is called by God and demonstrates a gift for ministry, then I (we) have no right to define that relationship other than to bless it, support it and celebrate that vision in relationship with God. This does not mean arbitrarily changing our personal vision or model of that relationship but does preclude us enforcing our personal model on others.

Over the past decade, the vote to overturn G-6.0106b has grown strongly and steadily until today we stand at the edge of overturning this relationship limiting decision.  I do not believe that this change is merely giving voice to a cultural shift but is, in fact, a new understanding of the ultimate love of God and recognition of God’s right and not ours, to define that relationship.  Do we not pray, before we vote in presbytery for the Spirit to guide our hearts and minds? Assuming that this shift is merely cultural is denying the power of our intentional prayers for guidance and the power of the Spirit to guide this body.

Those in this forum that speak to the “apostasy” of inclusion and diversity should reflect on Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians in which he admonishes a fractured Church “Is Christ then divided?,” and clearly states “ neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. He who plants and he who waters is equal”.  We are but servants of God and it is God’s place, and not ours, to decide in what form the growth of His Church takes. To speak of leaving the PCUSA, forming a new “fellowship” of “like-minded” individuals or withholding per-capita or mission giving simply fragments Christ’s Church further into quarreling cadres of what Paul calls “immature Christians” replete with their very own secret Bible decoder rings.

I contend that we are God expressing in divine creation, and that it is through our diversity of faith, function and call that we allow God to fully express and unfold His creation. I celebrate diversity in Christ. I reject Bibliolatry as limiting God’s unfolding of creation. While I use the convention of Him and His herein, I embrace the masculine/feminine nature of God. I acknowledge humankind’s divine nature. I celebrate the convictions with which all paths in the PCUSA plus 10 other Presbyterian denominations as well as other faith communities worldwide, are lovingly and passionately expressed in humankind’s search for truth and connection with God.  Will you celebrate equally with me in the name of Christ?

It is through diversity that we see contrast and we gain focus and so our prayerful intentions are formed. It is through these powerful prayerful intentions that we then co-create and manifest God’s creation on this earth. My pastor and I do not agree on a number of issues, including the course of the PCUSA regarding 10A, however, we seek and share enlightenment together, worship together and serve the Lord’s table to each other while loving and respecting each other as brothers in Christ. This, I believe, is what Paul teaches; that those who plant and that those who water, equal in the eyes of God, express God in Christ with one voice.

It is only in our diversity in Christ that we are one. Joining with one voice, whether it be those who plant or those who water i.e. Evangelical Caucus or More Light Presbyterians, that we co-create God’s creation and ultimate purpose.

Finally, and with all due respect to Rev. Kent Moorlach (Layman Online – letters to the editor 3/24/11) regarding the name “Presbyterian;”

My name is Elder Marston Myers and I am a Presbyterian! Marston Myers – Ruling Elder/Presbytery Commissioner Delta Community Presbyterian Church, Discovery Bay, Calif.

---

The Holy Spirit, the body of Christ and dialogue

Posted Friday, March 25, 2011

I am very grateful for the comments and discussion going on here. The thoughts of those who have responded to my letter from March 15, “No one person knows the mind of God,” are precious to me. Our continuing conversation helps me to look deeper into my understanding of the Holy Spirit, the body of Christ and the nature of blessed dialogue. I hope it does for you as well.

In 1995 Pittsburgh Presbytery read the entire Bible together using “The Year of the Bible” developed by Rev. James E. Davison, Ph.D., at present the director of continuing education at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.  Since then, along with Bible study for other purposes, of course, I have maintained that daily practice.  I have read and meditated upon every page of our Holy Scripture many times. To further our vital conversation I want to share three things I have gained from that spiritual discipline:

1) The Bible, as a whole, is a library – a collection of different kinds of writings from different times and places, inspired by the Holy Spirit both in the writing and in the community choices to include these books in Scripture, out of the many possibilities available.  Throughout history single Bible verses, such as “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything,” (Colossians 3:22), have been used to justify acts we now universally reject.  So while we may disagree on whether God is doing a new thing right now among us, I hope we can agree that God has regularly done that very thing through the course of time so that our interpretations of Bible verses and our emphasis upon different passages in Scripture have changed, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

2) Throughout my life, I have looked to Matthew 22:37-40 to guide my actions as a faithful Christian.  When asked to name the greatest commandment in the Law, Jesus replied, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” If we are committed to Jesus at the Word, we cannot ignore these calls and commandments.  They can be difficult to adhere to at times, but they guide me, both in embracing those who I see as being shunned in our time, and those who may have disagreements with me. I hope that I live up to loving God and loving my neighbor here in our conversation as well.

3) I am sure it is no surprise to you that I take heart in the recent public statements of a life-long conservative Presbyterian, Rev. Dr. Arlo Duba.  Rev. Duba has been clear about the way his mind was opened to what he calls “a progression of calls for a broader inclusion in the church beginning in Luke’s gospel.”  He highlights the tax collector taken by Jesus as a disciple, the striking point of Jesus’ story of the Good Samaritan, the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch and the falling of the Holy Spirit upon the Gentiles.  Dr. Duba interprets these passages as, “All examples of people shunned by society – and all now being welcomed into the body of Christ.”  My reading of Scripture brings me to the same conclusion.

Scripture challenges us to ask: What do we lose as a spiritual community when we push people away?  My answer is that we lose our openness to the Holy Spirit.  We endanger our souls. Christ teaches us to embrace all, including our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender sisters and brothers and to love them as Paul the Jew, loved Timothy the Gentile.

This having been said, it is a matter of my faith in how God works that I assume the Holy Spirit is inspiring James Berkley, the others who responded here, and me even though some of our positions are opposed.  By our opposition, God drives us to find common ground in the body of Christ.  God has chosen who is in the PCUSA so that, together, we can discern God’s will for us.  The judgment day in Matthew 25 is between nations (groups like families or church denominations according to my interpretation of this parable), not of individuals.

I agree completely with Noel Anderson and James Berkley that a false or superficial or tepid or vacant unity in the church is a travesty of our faith.  Unity in Christ was never meant to rest upon doctrinal agreement.  Our unity does not arise from one group in the church forcing those with different, Spirit inspired, understandings to comply.  I trust Gamaliel’s wisdom: if it is of God, we will not be able to overthrow it.

And that which is “of God” becomes known through dialogue that is blessed by the Holy Spirit.   That is the dialogue I seek.  I have experienced it occasionally in the PCUSA (I love you Doug Dunderdale).  It comes from loving, listening, accepting where we agree and where we disagree, finding where we agree and building upon that.

I seek dialogue because God is love, love necessitates relationship and relationship comes through dialogue.  This is one reason why what Jim Berkley calls “embracing embrace” has value for me.  Actual, meaningful dialogue and heartfelt embrace require a few things – things that we can all admit have been woefully missing in the PCUSA in many instances for the last 40 years.  For example, respect for the dignity of the other is essential.  It is clear to me that our conversation about marriage can only flourish when the dignity of all and respect for all are solidly in place.

I hope this dialogue within the loving vessel of the Body of Christ is what you yearn for as well.  I hope you see, as I do, that our exchange here is a good start and that you are grateful for it, as I am.  I hope that means you will share your thoughts, too.  Rev. Dr. Janet Edwards, co-moderator More Light Presbyterians

---

The PCUSA system only works when someone does the right thing by filing a case

Posted Friday, March 25, 2011

It has been interesting to read the various suggestions regarding what we more theologically conservative folks should consider doing if Amendment 10-A passes.  I’d like to add a few things to the pot for consideration.

This first point may be stating the obvious, but if Amendment 10-A passes we have to keep in perspective that nothing in what it says mandates that practicing homosexuals must be ordained.  It will certainly open the door for those sessions and presbyteries who interpret Scripture and the confessions in such a way as to permit the ordination of practicing homosexuals to do so.

Yet, on the other hand, as written, Amendment 10-A will also fully allow for sessions and presbyteries who interpret Scripture and the confessions more traditionally, to refuse to ordain practicing homosexuals without reprisal.  Furthermore, there is nothing in Amendment 10-A which mandates a presbytery or session not in favor of Amendment 10-A, must accept or recognize the ordination of a practicing homosexual brother or sister by another session or presbytery.  For instance if a practicing homosexual pastor has been ordained by a particular presbytery and wishes to accept a call in another presbytery, that other presbytery is free to vote to refuse that call without reprisal.

It’s also an interesting point of polity to note that in presbyteries that voted to affirm 10-A by a very slim margin, it is still possible that that same presbytery could later vote to deny the ordination of a practicing homosexuals simply because on that particular day those who voted against 10-A might have a majority of votes present to do it.  It’s also possible that those two or three votes that made the difference may move away from that presbytery thereby allowing a new majority to be in place who could do some of the things suggested below.  Of course, the opposite is also true, so the conservatives in those presbyteries should be alert to that fact whenever a practicing homosexual candidate comes before the body for a vote.

As written, nothing in 10-A would prevent a session or presbytery from adopting as their future guidelines for ordination, the exact same words currently found in G-6.0106b.   It would be my suggestion that if 10-A passes, sessions and presbyteries who were against 10-A should immediately vote to adopt the current wording of G-6.0106b as their standards for ordination.  In addition, that motion should also state that to change those standards in the future would take an affirmative vote by a 2/3 majority of that governing body.

It should also be noted that nothing in the wording of 10-A will undue the fact that marriage in the PCUSA is only between a man and a woman.  According to the Book of Order and the confessions same-sex marriages will still be unconstitutional.  Therefore if 10-A passes, an ordained pastor whether they be gay or straight, will still not be permitted to perform a marriage between two people of the same sex even if the state they live in recognizes gay marriage.

That being the case, a gay ordained pastor, elder or deacon cannot claim themselves to be married to a person of the same sex and therefore cannot live with a person of the same sex in that type of relationship.  Since they can’t be legally married according to the constitution of the PCUSA, these brothers and sisters must be considered to be single.  Since they are single, it would also be considered misconduct for them to be sexually involved with anyone of the same or even opposite sex.

Therefore, I would suggest that if a pastor, be they gay or straight, performs a same-sex marriage, a disciplinary case should be filed against them without delay.  Also any ordained gay pastors, elders or deacons found living with someone of the same sex should be held accountable to prove that the living arrangement is nothing more than platonic.   Anything more would constitute misconduct and also should be responded to by filing a proper disciplinary case against that pastor, elder or deacon.  Unless the message is clearly sent that any violations will be brought to the courts of the church, same-sex marriages could become the norm and gay pastors, elders and deacons living with someone of the same sex as if married could go unchallenged.

Something we have to see here is that nothing will happen to stop any misconduct unless someone files a case.  Unless those committing the offense are held accountable by another filing a case when a violation of the constitution happens, nothing will happen.  That’s the way our system is set up and it does work.  Yet it only works when someone speaks up, stands up and does the right thing by filing a case.

I’ve argued cases before the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly and when I did, I found the members of the commission to be quality people who strictly interpreted and enforced the constitution as written.  However, lately a number of them have left the rails and have gone to whining about how the constitution is written and calling for its change, rather than doing their job and enforcing it as written.  If the GAPJC will properly interpret and enforce the constitution as written, without calling for it to be rewritten to make their job easier, the outcomes of any such cases would be consistent.

I would also recommend that any church in a presbytery that votes for Amendment 10-A immediately begin to withhold all per capita from that presbytery and reroute it to a trustworthy mission cause.  I would also suggest that all mission monies given to presbytery, synod or General Assembly be given only to mission causes you can fully vet as being worthy of such support and then designate those monies to those missions through the presbytery.  Giving monies to general mission budgets of any presbytery without designating them to missions you can in good conscience support, pretty much guarantees some of those funds will go to missions you would not otherwise support.  If you can’t find any presbytery, synod or General Assembly missions worth your support, or if they won’t let you designate your monies to specific missions of your choice, redirect those mission funds to other missions you feel you can trust.

Regarding leaving the PCUSA, a pastor friend once told me that he came in the front door of this denomination and the only way he’s leaving is for the denomination to kick him out that same front door.  That’s kind of how I feel.  I also entered this denomination in good faith through the front door and if I leave, it will be because I will have been kicked out that same front door by those who will have determined that they can no longer call me a brother in the faith and that my views of Scripture can no longer be respected, tolerated or included in the PCUSA. John McWilliams Naples, Fla.

---

Commit to continue the bold proclamation of God’s authoritative and undiluted Word

Posted Friday, March 25, 2011

Rev. Steven L. Seng provides helpful encouragement in his recent letter (03/23/2011) “Pro-gay ordination advocates ‘just don’t get it.'”

Though the story of the Presbyterian Church (USA) appears to be that it will become an apostate church body, a “false church” which we know secular media will continue to quote as an authority, the story of God’s plan and His people will continue so long as each of us remains faithful to the Father and His Word, proclaiming His Son as Lord and as the only path to salvation.

Rev. Seng concludes with: “Lastly, in as much as the foregoing sounds negative, it also needs noted that I and many others like me are not discouraged in another sense.  We will be faithful disciples of Jesus Christ somewhere, somehow; very possibly in our present locations.  We will be joyful teachers, preachers and care-givers to God’s sheep in a way that is faithful to the riches and truth of Scripture.  Many of us have moved past the stage of a cheerless sorrow and exhaustion to one where though we are disheartened over what seems to be here, nevertheless are still energized and filled with joy with the hope that perhaps a rest from the present struggle may be close at hand.”

I believe we all should join with him in a prayer of commitment to continue the bold proclamation of God’s authoritative and undiluted Word before all the world around us, with full confidence that He is with us always to the very end, which will be the beginning of our eternal rejoicing.

We stand with Christ victorious. Revelation 22:10-15 Paul Hubert

---

Do not operate in the dark, but confidently and courageously in the light

Posted Friday, March 25, 2011

This response is directed to Mr. Vernon Kuehn’s [letter to the editor, posted March 24, 2011] defense of the widespread use of the secret ballot at presbyteries on the 10-A vote. He says Robert’s Rules provides legal cover for these secret votes.  He obviously is quite reluctant to let his fellow church members in Alpharetta, those he purportedly represents, know how he voted.

Mr. Kuehn is correct though, when he states that Robert’s Rules does allow a secret ballot, but only if specific requirements are followed.  Because our by-laws (the Book of Order) do not specifically demand a secret ballot, Robert’s Rules permits it but only after a separate voice vote or a “general consent” has authorized it. In other words, the chair of the meeting must acquire formal approval in advance of the secret ballot before it can be legally used.

It is my contention that even though adherence to this precondition would then make the vote lawful, secret votes on 10-A would still make the outcome illegitimate. Mr. Kuehn references Section 46 of Robert’s Rules.  Here’s what it says:

“Voting by Ballot. The main object of this form of voting is secrecy, and it is resorted to when the question is of such a nature that some members might hesitate to vote publicly their true sentiments.”  (My emphasis).

Two themes prevalent throughout our constitution are that the Presbyterian Church is a “representative” church (G-1.0106) and is to be operated with a “new openness,” (G-3.0401).  How is use of a secret ballot in any way compatible with “representation” and “openness?”  Why should our voting commissioners need to hide “their true sentiments?”  The only possible reason is these commissioners (including our pastors) don’t want to be called to defend their vote.  Only a vote against the sentiment of the members represented could create such a fear.  How then is that compatible with a “representative church?”

There must be strong assurances by the governing bodies that this is truly a “representative” church and not covertly governed by an unaccountable, authoritarian elite.

To our pastors: Let your flock know your position on 10-A (or any significant moral issue) from the pulpit. If you believe your position is in line with God’s will, then you wear His armor and have nothing to fear.  Stand your ground.  But if you’re not prepared to deal with negative repercussions even though God “has your back,” you need to reexamine your calling to the ministry.

To all of our voting commissioners: Be public and forthright with your position. If your presbytery has already voted in secrecy, declare that vote to be illegal based on Presbyterian polity and require a public vote. If your presbytery has not yet voted, don’t allow a secret vote.  You are a part of history.  Demand that your individual name and vote be written into your presbytery’s minutes so your participation in the most significant denominational issue in at least a generation will be historically recorded. Please, do not operate in the dark, but confidently and courageously in the light.

A denominational fracture is a high possibility if 10-A passes. For this to occur under a veil of secrecy, for this to be enacted in clear violation of the Book of Order, and for it to be done with zero personal accountability by those entrusted with the final vote is unconscionable and makes the outcome illegitimate. Tom McGinley First Presbyterian Church, Bethlehem, Pa.

---

Letter writer should read section titled ‘voting by ballot’ in Robert’s Rules

Posted Thursday, March 24, 2011

Tom McGinley wrote [letter to the editor, posted March 23, 2011] that presbyteries are using an unlawful voting method on Amendment 10-A.

If McGinley will research Section 46 of Robert’s Rules of Order he will find guidance on the use of “voting by ballot.”

If McGinley will track down an elder who has served as a commissioner to the General Assembly, he will learn through that conversation that virtually all significant issues are voted on privately or secretly by use of a voting machine.  It serves as an electronic version of “voting by ballot.”

If McGinley will read from the Book of Order, Section G-4.0301 d., he may be surprised to learn that a commissioner is not accountable for his/her vote and is not required to defend it to those “represented” to use his concept.  What he has expressed may be what we have come to expect of our civil legislators in the United States.  If a commissioner is to represent the will of Christ then the vote needs to be defended before Christ.  Going home and defending your vote before the members of your own congregation is not mandatory.

My presbytery has voted, and I marked my (printed) ballot with confidence that we were voting by using an accepted and lawful form of conducting business.  No one in my congregation (Alpharetta Presbyterian Church) has asked me to explain or defend my vote. Vernon Kuehn Cumming, Ga.

---

PCUSA will ultimately be supplanted by a more faithful Presbyterian denomination

Posted Thursday, March 24, 2011

Five years ago, we planted Communion Presbyterian Church (ARP).  Just prior to this launch, our core team spent some time discussing whether or not we would actually banner “Presbyterian” in our church name. I still recall one dear saint pleading with our group, “Could we please not use the term Presbyterian? My Christian neighbors are concerned that I attend a Presbyterian church and I constantly tell them that we are not those Presbyterians.”

Who are those Presbyterians?

Those are they that:

•  parade as animals and offer prayers lead by tribal Indian shamans at their General Assemblies;
• participate fully with the World Council of Churches in Geneva but fudge on Calvin’s doctrines of grace;
• demand their seminarians use “gender inclusive language” when referring to God but exclude students preaching an historic and conservative theology;
• condemn national Israel for their politics but condone unbelievers partaking of the Lord’s Supper;
• require “congregational quotas” for session members but reject the qualifications for elder delineated in Scripture;
• include the historic confessions of other Reformed bodies in their Book of Confessions yet have the audacity to re-write another communion’s document in order to accommodate denominational agendas;
• have fraternal relations with the UCC but are unrecognized by NAPARC;
• claim they are “open to the Spirit” but confuse what the Spirit has finally said in the canon.

There is surely more.

I recognize that no church is perfect.  My own denomination has come through over 200 years of debate and continues to seek purity of devotion to the Scriptures – this process is as old as Acts 15 (And yes, even before then).

So why did our church plant include an antiquated Greek word describing a form of government in our church name?  Because we knew this day was coming: the day when the “mainline” PCUSA would no longer be the largest Presbyterian denomination.  Our church embraces the heritage and convictions of the Westminster Confession of Faith (and Catechisms), and because these documents truly reflect the convictions of the Scriptures and a faithful Presbyterian church, we were convinced that the PCUSA would finally fracture, lose enough churches, and ultimately be supplanted by another, more faithful, Presbyterian denomination – one with whom our church would be pleased to represent our own communion.  (Right now, that’s looking like the PCA, and when they are ready to join the ARP, we’ll be ready!)

The PCUSA certainly has the freedom to pursue the course on which it treads.  The warnings regarding this day have been clearly posted by Machen and others.   Regardless, with a sense of sadness, we mourn the trials of the PCUSA; especially for the many committed believers who wrestle with future affiliations. But a new day is here, and in all humility, we’d like to have the name back! Rev. Kent Moorlach Communion Presbyterian Church (ARP), Irvine, Ca.

---

Pro-gay ordination advocates ‘just don’t get it’

Posted Wednesday, March 23, 2011

A recent contributor wrote, “The debate is surely not over, unless all those opposed to the change leave.  There will likely be overtures brought to the next General Assembly to reverse this action.  Perhaps this time we can move past the easy slogans and declarations (from both sides) of what ‘they’ want and mean and engage in listening to one another instead of preaching.” [James D. Schroll’s letter to the editor, posted March 21, 2010.]

These thoughts point to, or at least infer, what many of us are frustrated with – they just don’t get it.  We precisely want the debate to be over.  We’ve pleaded for years for them to give up the battle to change what Scripture does not allow.  And yet they encourage us to “stay and remain fully engaged.”

And the idea that all we’ve had in the past is “easy slogans and declaration” is incredulous.  Explanations of our views, rationales provided and Biblical exegesis galore have not been in short supply.  To suggest that we need to begin listening to another is a statement presupposing we have not been listening.  Not only is that patently untrue but it is either naive or disingenuous.  In addition it seems condescending and it pricks the heart that has been listening, articulating and engaging in civil discourse.

Also, the idea that “there will likely be overtures brought to the next General Assembly to reverse this action” is most likely at one and the same time true and a fraud.  There probably will be such overtures, but the idea that the action achieved in 10-A will be reversed seems incredibly unlikely.  The move toward normalization of sexual immorality has gained such steam that I fail to envision it being reversed.

Lastly, in as much as the foregoing sounds negative, it also needs noted that I and many others like me are not discouraged in another sense.  We will be faithful disciples of Jesus Christ somewhere, somehow; very possibly in our present locations.  We will be joyful teachers, preachers and care-givers to God’s sheep in a way that is faithful to the riches and truth of Scripture.  Many of us have moved past the stage of a cheerless sorrow and exhaustion to one where though we are disheartened over what seems to be here, nevertheless are still energized and filled with joy with the hope that perhaps a rest from the present struggle may be close at hand. Rev. Steven L. Seng Torrington, Wyo.

---

Time for PCUSA to choose to honor God or to continue their dance with evil

Posted Wednesday, March 23, 2011

It has been almost 20 years since my wife and I, along with our young children, left the PCUSA.  We saw, even then, the painful and protracted battle that was yet to come in the church.  And though our leaving was not without substantial grief, we also recognized that we go to church to worship God, to learn His ways and to commune with fellow believers – not to endure ongoing strife and political battles that seek to undermine the authority of God’s Word in a corrupt attempt to validate sexual sin under the banner of the church’s authority.

As the years have gone by, we have continued to learn with great sadness that what we saw 20 years ago has indeed happened.  Like the people who built the golden calf in the time of Moses, like the Israelites in the days following Solomon, and in numerous other instances in Scripture, it is time for the people of the PCUSA to choose to honor God or to continue their incestuous dance with evil.  Like us, many have already made this choice, but many are still sitting on the fence hoping to find a way to compromise with evil.  For them, I hope they will consider what God has already made clear in Joshua 24:15:

“But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.” Tom Ambrose

---

‘Do we choose the world, or do we choose His word?’

Posted Wednesday, March 23, 2011

After much prayer and thought and discussion, my husband and I have left the Presbyterian Church (USA).  We mailed the letter to our home church yesterday.   We do not know where we will find a church home now, but know that God will lead us to where we need to be. I do not think that it will be a “mainstream” church, because much like taking the wider path does not lead to salvation but following the narrow path does, perhaps we will find a little “brook” or “creek” church where we can find fellowship with those who put God first.  The Rev. Seng’s letter [posted March 17, 2011] did not force a decision on me; however, it did give me the final push to say “I won’t be a hypocrite in God’s house.”

The voting charts reveal (sadly) that the presbyteries where we spend our summers and where we winter have spoken with a rather loud “yes” vote to both Amendment 10-A and the Belhar Confession.  I can’t be in a church, presbytery or synod where I know that I am at odds with half (or more) of those also attending.  Enough fighting takes place in the world as it is, does the battle need to continue on a field that has already ceded victory?  Can you truly worship God knowing that you do not have a good Christian feeling and relationship with your fellow members, or with the governing authority for the church? I do not know how the final voting will be determined, but I do know that where I live and worship the voting is final, so rather than be a hypocrite, our decision was made to leave and find something more in keeping with our understanding of Scripture.

Over the years I have found solace in the Letter of Jude.  Maybe everyone needs to find a quiet place to sit down for a few minutes and read this letter – and absorb what it says. I may be a weak Presbyterian because I chose to leave the church – and I was raised Presbyterian, but not this kind of Presbyterian. I have chosen to contend for the faith of our saints by finding a church that is not afraid to stand for God, the Christ and the Holy Ghost.  It’s not over, friends – this is just the beginning.  If the line has not been drawn completely in the sand, it has been started and drawn very deeply.

We have educated ourselves beyond our level of obedience.  I heard minister say that phrase over the summer.  In thinking on it I realized it is true.  We bow down at the feet of diversity.  We raise up the god of science.  We sell our souls for the right to call ourselves inclusive.  We put God on a therapist’s couch to try to work our will into His being so we might feel we are serving humanity; to try to convince Him that we think what He really means is what we want to hear so we can justify our actions in our lives.  We idolize popularity to the point we are unable to think on our own two feet without a legion of friends cheering us on no matter what we say or do.  We use $50 words when a ten-cent word is best.  We raise up a sick denomination of man-made laws over God’s law.  And in our state of enlightenment we draw others to our flame of destruction so we don’t falter alone.  We are so stupid in our “spirituality” that we marginalize God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost with almost every breath we breathe.  Each time we choose the warm-and-fuzzy way, we move God down one more step on the ladder.  We have lost our reverential fear of the Lord, our God – the very God who told us that He is a jealous God and that we are to have no other gods before Him.  We have lost our minds in wanting to be everything to everyone, forgetting that all that matters in this world is that we are to be true to God and His word.  Do we choose the world, or do we choose His word?

I do not know what God will say about me when I stand before Him and all His glory on judgment day, but I do not think He will judge me based on what kind of Presbyterian I was.  We all sin, and we all fall short of God’s glory every day.  I have enough to answer for when I die, but I do not want to carry with me the label of hypocrite.  I regret I do not live in Wyoming or I would gladly stand with the Rev. Seng as he tries to find his way forward.  Since I am not there, I have to move on to where I know that God comes first, and where people believe that Christ is the only way to salvation.

God made the world.
God made us in His image.
God made the rules.

It is not about what we think –- it’s about what God says.
It’s not about what we want – it’s about what God wills.
It is not about the here and now – it’s about the hereafter.

And when we take time to isolate ourselves and ask God for guidance in His word, we find we have made our human mistakes and we ask forgiveness.   He forgives us and lets us try, again, to get it right.  But at some point in our lives we have to make the decision of an eternal lifetime:  Do we choose the world, or do we choose His word? Stacy Schultz St. Augustine, Fla.

---

Evangelicals have lost significant status since the 1960s

Posted Wednesday, March 23, 2011

A crisis gives birth to many illusions.  We see it now in the fantasy of evangelicals retaking or overwhelming the hutch by multiplying themselves like rabbits.

If that scenario were credible, it would already have established itself as a historical trend.  But in point of fact, evangelicals have lost significant status since the 1960s.  Evangelicals are in the last ditch stage as a transformational element anywhere in the Mainline.

They will dither, but they will not lead. Gary Starkey Yakima, Wash.

---