While there may be good reasons to continue in this war, we were misled
Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2006
While I am sure that Marine Colonel Lammers meant well and is sincere in his comments, I cannot believe that he said that “… The United States is not at war with Iraq.” According to President Bush, over 30,000 Iraq people have been killed during this “war.”
Also while there may be good reasons for us to continue in this war, it is true that at a minimum, we were misled by the Bush administration in getting us into the war.
Finally as we pursue our ecumenical relationship with the Roman Catholic community, perhaps it would have helped our president if he had accepted the pope’s comments against the war rather than relying on his “direct line” to the “father.”
Rev. Dr. David D. Mellon, HR Ormond Beach, Fla.
Please explain the rationale for ignoring/rewriting parts of the Bible
Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Are we truly harming ourselves as believers in Jesus? [asked by Earl Apel’s letter to the editor, posted January 30, 2006]
A very interesting question, which I will try to answer.
The short answer is yes, you are. And as a Christian brother, I feel that you are in danger of being deceived that you are “OK.” God does not wish for one person to be lost but that all may be saved. So it is our calling to preach the good news, both to those in the Church and those outside. This also undermines our witness to the world, if he can know what he is doing is OK with God what about my behavior? Why do I need to repent and turn away when it is a lot easier to justify it?
I also feel that this whole issue is just the tip of the iceberg. It is a distraction being used to grab our attention and resource. The greater danger comes in the form prayers to Allah, having open communion for whoever shows up, in saying that maybe Christ is not the only way of salvation.
And here comes the some questions of my own that to date I have never got straight answers too:
1) Mr. Apel says in his letter, “Otherwise there would be numerous unrepentant homosexuals hanging ourselves just as Judas did.” How can the word unrepentant be used and it not be a sin? By definition unrepentant means, you know what you are doing is wrong, but choose to do it anyway.
2) If the Bible is the Word of God, then the current argument for ordaining has these rationales behind it:
a) We now know things that God did not when he originally inspired the Bible.
b) We are now correcting his mistake(s).
Is this the case? If not can anyone please explain the rationale for ignoring/rewriting parts of the Bible?
Marc Karasek
If there is a schism in PCUSA, it’s because GA believes it’s all powerful
Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2006
In the recent issue of The Layman, I was interested in the article on the Reverend Ernest D. Smart who was the well-respected and loved pastor at Second Presbyterian Church in Baltimore, Maryland for 18 years. For too many years the General Assembly’s representative in the Baltimore area was Herbert Valentine, who wielded a club over the heads of those, like Ernest Smart, who incurred his wrath. As an elder in the Presbyterian Church since 1983, I witnessed Valentine’s unreasonable actions on several occasions. I felt the General Assembly should be made aware of Valentine’s abuses but my fellow session members feared he would strike out at us closing our church as he did another Baltimore church, throwing the ministers and congregation into the street.
The Layman article reported: “In 2002 the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly, the high court in the denomination, held that Smart was denied the process and fairness…” If Valentine had any say in said “process,” I can assure you this man has no compassion nor a sense of fairness if someone gets in his way!
If there is a schism in our denomination today, I feel it is because the General Assembly came to believe it was all powerful, and as we know, power corrupts. Members of the assembly turned their backs on the teachings of Jesus Christ and even shocked many Presbyterians by suggesting Holy Scripture should be rewritten. Jesus did not concern himself with what was “politically correct,” nor did he tolerate the self-serving leaders in the Synagogues. Now the assembly’s misguided tolerance has backfired and left it dealing with Baltimore’s Don Stroud, a self-serving homosexual who should never have been ordained. I suggest members of the General Assembly refresh their memories by reading: 1 Corinthians 6:9, Romans 1:26-32, and Galatians 5:19-21. Since the assembly has chosen to ignore Holy Scripture, it should not surprise its members that they have lost the respect and trust of the majority of Presbyterian ministers and congregations throughout this land.
Second Presbyterian Church in Baltimore was my grandfather’s vision – Dr. Robert G. Leetch. As the church’s minister, he moved it from a deteriorating downtown area to its present location. It appalls me to think of Herbert Valentine’s efforts to destroy this beautiful tribute to God.
Louise S. Murphy South Naples, Fla.
Let God remould your minds from within
Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2006
From Sunday’s [1/29/06] bulletin from The Falls Church, Falls Church, Va. by Rev. Yates:
“Those of us who believe in and follow Jesus have the ongoing joy and challenge of seeking to know and understand, as well as trust and obey our Lord. We have the Scripture and 2,000 years of Christian teaching and tradition to guide us. In matters of doctrine and discipleship, we start with prayer and then go to the Bible and then look to the wisdom of our Christian forebears and peers. When we believe that we have gained godly understanding of a doctrinal or moral question, then we commit to the teaching and seek to be faithful with all our heart. We must be stubbornly and courageously faithful. This is not always easy because we live in an age that elevates a modern view of ‘tolerance’ as the highest virtue. Tolerance used to mean that, though believing something strongly, one accepts another who disagrees and does not seek to deny his right to another view point. But today tolerance implies that no one should ever think that his own view is right except for himself – all truth is therefore subjective, all truth is personal, and to cling to one’s own view as the truth is considered the highest of arrogance.
“Chesterton foresaw this a century ago and offers a still relevant word:
“‘What we suffer from … is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction, where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays, the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert – himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt – the Divine Reason.
“Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its mould, but let God remould your minds from within, so that you may prove in practice that the plan of God for you is good, meets all his demands, and moves towards the goal of true maturity.” (Romans 12:2)”
Marlayn Stauffer
PCUSA leadership is more accommodating toward Moslems than evangelicals
Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Faith is only as valid as its object. In his letter of Jan. 30, Ritchie Jones wrote, “God who loves all, creates all, embraces all and most importantly owns all, does not ask us to separate the wheat from the chaff.” Perhaps this reference to wheat and chaff needs to be balanced with other portions of Scripture. In the Old Testament, God doesn’t appear especially fond of Egyptian charioteers or Canaanites. In both Malachi and Romans, we read that God loved Jacob and hated Esau. Then, in the book of Revelation, God seems to really have an attitude. Jones wants us to have a faith that is informed by neither science nor the supernatural. This leaves us with faith in faith. The problem with this is that one may go in any direction with it. One may become a Nobel prize-winning humanitarian, and perhaps Jones will. But a life of faith in faith may lead someone to become something quite different; I’m sure the minions of Osama Bin Laden are brimming over with faith.
Which leads me to another point. Recently there’s been much discussion about what ought to be the Christian response to Islam. Maybe somebody should ask about the response of Islam to Christianity. Allow me to quote the Qur’an:
- And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away! (Surah 9.30)
So why is the PCUSA leadership so much more accommodating toward Moslems than they are toward evangelicals?
I should also point out, however, that last week I walked into an “Islamic Reading Room” and asked for an English-language Qur’an. Although I was wearing a tee-shirt that plainly said, “I believe in Jesus Christ,” I was treated with courtesy. Perhaps we Christians can do the same thing: we can treat our Moslem neighbors with courtesy and respect, without kidding ourselves that they’re our brothers in the Lord. Above all, we should remember the words of Jesus found in Matthew 28:18-20.
Rev. Dr. Larry Brown African Bible College, Malawi, Africa
Hollywood’s drama shows how real and deep the struggle is in the PCUSA
Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2006
God will not be silenced; his Holy Word will not be muffled! I have been following the sad, sad events of the Hollywood Presbyterian saga and now today have just read Rev. Meenan’s letter to his flock. This seems like a closure to the event, but it is not … it is a preview of what will continue until the schism in the PCUSA is resolved. The drama of the Hollywood Presbyterian Church is a vivid demonstration of how real and deep is the struggle in the PCUSA. The stakes must seem awfully high to the leaders in our denomination who would stoop so low to utilize such underhanded means to render an adversary, the thorn in their flesh, helpless in their arena of polity.
It is sad that the coming General Assembly, instead of being a rallying point for the Church to take on the nation and the world for Christ, is taking on the drama of a gladiator ring for our internal schism. It is necessary for this battle to be fought and it will be; when the dust is settled, we can hopefully put nonsense like the skulduggery of the Hollywood Presbyterian tragedy behind us. Out of the ashes, God’s Word will rise.
It is highly commendable, that Rev. Meenan harbors no bitterness and that he continues to be a faithful and significant voice for the Gospel. Is there gloating in the adversary’s camp or is there regret? Jesus wept and Jesus weeps.
Rev. George F. Major Silex Presbyterian Church, Silex, Missouri
To embrace overture, PCUSA must give up the tenants of the Christian faith
Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2006
All one has to do to embrace this proposal is to give up all the tenants of the Christian faith: The incarnation, his teachings, his sufferings, his vicarious death, his resurrection, our hope, the Holy Spirit and the New Testament.
John Buckingham
OPC’s answer is frightening and his words, coming from Scripture, are haunting
Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2006
DK’s answer to the question, posed by a PCUSA member, posted on the Web site of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, “when must we leave the church?” is frightening; his words, coming faithfully from Scripture, are haunting. He assumes the operative word in the question is “must” as in “required;” he goes on to answer the question on a “must” basis. He cites a damning list of sins ascribed to the once great fellowship of Christians now known as the Presbyterian Church (USA). This partial list are sins that surely have reached heaven. (He may not be aware of institutional “stoning” of prophets in the PCUSA who dare to call these sins into account.)
DK, humbly, does not presume to answer the “must” question; rather he turns to eternal authority, the thunder roaring, lighting flashing, earth quaking words of the Lord Almighty!
‘Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,’ says the Lord …” (2 Cor. 6:14-17).
A reading of the complete scripture is highly recommended for all who, personally, wish to have peace with the Almighty.
DK’s piece, printed in the Layman Online 1-30-06, is the authentic stuff of fear and trembling. It is a must read as one considers the issues before the 2006 PCUSA General Assembly, the actions that will be taken there and what the Almighty commands our response to be!
As for Mike Urton [letter to the editor, posted January 30, 2006], who asks the rhetorical question: “Has the leadership of the General Assembly and the PUP found a way to circumvent the process of ratification by the presbyteries, and modify the Book of Order without approval of ‘flyover’ Presbyterians?”
The simple direct answer is “Yes.” That is the whole and complete point.
James Logan McHenry, Md.
By which rule will the church be governed – the PUP or the constitution?
Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2006
The PUP recommendation, if adopted, will change the use and meaning of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church.
1.) It changes the doctrine of ordination from an action of the entire church to become something done in one manner by one presbytery or session in one place, and done perhaps very differently by another presbytery or session elsewhere.
Ordination, according to the PUP, is locally decided, and with many possible standards for those who are to be ordained. This is a constitutional matter impacting many portions of the Book of Order and our Book of Confessions. By which rule will the church be governed – the PUP or the constitution?
2.) It changes the definition of the essential tenets of the Reformed faith by specifically excluding large segments of the constitution from consideration in the matter of the qualifications of those who should be ordained by the church.
The PUP report does not address the purpose and content of The Book of Confessions. But have we removed the confessions from our constitution? Have we amended them by removing all portions in the confessions that refer to homosexual practice as sinful behavior? The PUP report has the effect of rendering all those portions of the constitution which address sexual purity and chastity in singleness as null and void. Is that not a constitutional issue which must come before our presbyteries?
3.) It changes the purpose of The Book of Confessions from being a guide for our faith and life into a bit of Presbyterian history with no weight whatsoever.
The PUP report, neglects to address the purpose and use of the confessions of our church as constitutional documents. How does the PUP report, if adopted, impact the use of The Book of Confessions as a definition of what we will believe and do as Christian people who are living as Presbyterians? The adoption of the PUP report, as advertised by the information meetings being held everywhere, is to substitute the PUP for the constitution in the matters of sexual conduct for ordinands. Is not this is a matter that should be handled by constitutional amendment and sent to the presbyteries?
Those attending the General Assembly as delegates ought to demand that the PUP report be brought to the floor of the General Assembly only as a constitutional change requiring the concurrence of the presbyteries. Otherwise, if adopted, the PUP will effect the most dramatic change in the constitution in our church’s history, and that without one presbytery voting on it.
Thomas Warren Deltona Presbyterian Church
Sometimes God uses Satan to push forward the Lord’s own purpose
Posted Tuesday, January 31, 2006
As I read to the end of Pastor Meenan’s letter within the article, Hollywood’s former senior pastor holds ‘no bitterness,’ the thought that came to my mind was sometimes Satan thinks he has won, but the reality is that Satan has just been used by God to push forward the Lord’s own purpose.
We don’t know what the future holds for Hollywood Presbyterian or for the PCUSA. But it appears that Pastor Meehan has been moved onward and upward to accomplish more for God’s kingdom that the limitations at Hollywood Presbyterian allowed for. May our Sovereign God bless him and give him peace.
Debi Grenseman, elder Walla Walla First Presbyterian Church, Walla Walla, Wash.
Flaw in conservative doctrine: Its reluctance or inability to live by faith
Posted Monday, January 30, 2006
All this talk about science, and faith and PUP and “local option” and ordination standards unveils a fundamental flaw in conservative doctrine. The flaw is its reluctance or inability to live by faith. It is not so much that faith cannot be informed, but that faith in the dark is rejected. Yet that is where faith shows its brightest luster. We do not need validation of our faith from science, nor do we need it from the supernatural. If we validate our faith, it is only by living it.
When we choose to live by faith, we do not need to imagine or create doctrinal enemies. If real enemies present themselves we are asked to love them and if necessary to lay down our lives for them. God who loves all, creates all, embraces all and most importantly owns all, does not ask us to separate the wheat from the chaff. Jesus was very specific about that. He does not ask us to hold up others as bad examples of whom or what we give thanks we are not, real or imagined. He asks us only to focus on the word “good” when pairing it with the word “news.” Less and we fall short, and churches fall away. More and we become paralyzed by strife, and churches break away.
With humble compassion for Dr Larry Brown’s loss and begging his forgiveness, the only reason I bring his up is because from that sacred place there is a fundamental doctrine of forgiveness, life and love just waiting to be born. A doctrine that relies only on faith.
Ritchie Jones Los Angeles, Calif.
There are homosexuals living and thriving in the faith
Posted Monday, January 30, 2006
Mr. Glaser [letter to the editor, posted January 24, 2006] writes in response to my letter:
“If I remember correctly the greatest commandment which Jesus refers too is, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ It does not read, ‘You shall not offend your neighbors and shall let them do whatever they want.’ What love would you show your neighbor if you continued to allow them to harm themselves?”
Perhaps Mr. Glaser forgets the Easter account where Judas betrays Jesus and Jesus simply allows that to take place. Jesus knew quite well that Judas was going to offend and let that slide by. Does this mean Jesus ignored his own commandment? Of course not! The cold truth is that Jesus allowed Judas to commit suicide in the end. Jesus did let Judas harm himself. But I expect Jesus still demonstrated love in the end and it was that love that Judas couldn’t deal with.
Going back to the homosexual debate what everyone likes to ignore is the fact there are homosexuals living and thriving in the faith. Are we truly harming ourselves as believers in Jesus? Of course not! Otherwise there would be numerous unrepentant homosexuals hanging ourselves just as Judas did.
So do we as homosexuals truly offend our brothers and sisters in Christ? It just seems strange to me for anyone to make such a claim and to think we simply want chaos to rule. I continue to not understand why my own simple statement of accepting Christ is not enough in this silly debate?
Earl C. Apel, member Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church, Cincinnati, Ohio
PUP’s compromise is ‘very unsettling to say the least’
Posted Monday, January 30, 2006
God bless you for sending me and other concerned Christians The Layman.
Like so many others, I am greatly concerned about the direction of the PCUSA. The compromise upon which the Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity has settled is very unsettling to say the least. And the latest issue of The Layman is filled with discussion of further schism and various factions of Presbyterians splitting from the PCUSA if the recommendation of the committee is adopted in June by the General Assembly.
But, aren’t we jumping the gun? Previous attempts to change the ordination standard and therefore the Book of Order, have met with successively larger margins of defeat when taken to the presbyteries for ratification. Has the leadership of the General Assembly and the PUP found a way to circumvent the process of ratification by the presbyteries, and modify the Book of Order without approval of “flyover” Presbyterians?
Mike Urton
Thanks for words of colonel in Iraq
Posted Monday, January 30, 2006
Thank you for the article, “Marine colonel: PCUSA leaders’ letter does ‘more harm than good.'” [Jan./Feb. 2006 Layman, page 1]
Col. Carl R. Lammers is certainly to be commended on his writing of standing up for what is actually going on with the Middle East partners and freedom for Iraq. Why would anyone ever criticize those defending and fighting for the right of freedom? Especially when they are not even in the area of conflict. People are so quick to judge, especially when they have no concept of the actual happenings.
Col. Lammers sets a good example of keeping the facts at home from being misconstrued.
Pat Prewett Kennesaw, Ga.
Compare the two and it becomes clear that Allah is a distortion of Yahweh
Posted Monday, January 30, 2006
I almost passed out when I read this article. I, as a born again Christian, have nothing in common with a Muslim, because Yahweh is not Allah, despite what their Koran, accepted Islamic theology and First Presbyterian Church of Rockaway, N.J. says. Let’s look at the facts:
1. The God of the Old Testament is named Yahweh, according to his own words in Exodus 3:14, 15. Yahweh is our God’s personal name and is used as such over 6,000 times in the Old Testament. But, according to Islamic teaching, God’s name is Allah and nothing else. It is true that the Arabic “allah” and the Hebrew “elo” are from the same root because both languages are Semitic, and “Elo” is frequently used in the Hebrew Bible in reference to God, as in “Elohim.” But, Elohim is not God’s personal name, it is a title. No matter how you look at it, Allah cannot be our God because our God’s name is Yahweh, not Allah.
2. Yahweh is personally knowable. In reference to the New Covenant, Jeremiah 31:34 declares that “all will know” Yahweh. This refers to a knowing in an intimate way, as a husband gets to know his wife over the course of their marriage. Our God can be known, if not comprehended. In Islamic teaching, Allah cannot be known personally. You can know about Allah but you cannot know him in a personal way. In fact, in the Koran, there is no indication that Allah seeks to know his followers on an intimate, personal level. Yet, is that not the whole story of the Bible: Yahweh seeking to restore fallen man to a place of fellowship that existed before the fall? Given this, Allah and Yahweh cannot be the same person.
3. Yahweh is love. Time and time again in John’s writings, we read that “God is love.” John 3:16 tells us that God loved the world – not just those who love him back. That is why the prophets and Jesus called God “Father,” because that is the kind of relationship he wants to have with man. Yet, according to the Koran, Allah loves only those who obey him. The word “love” is used rarely in the Koran, and always in reference to Allah “loving the obedient” or “the righteous.” Allah does not love the sinner, as Yahweh does. So, they cannot be the same God.
4. Yahweh has chosen Jerusalem. In 2 Chronicles 33:7, Yahweh says that he has chosen Jerusalem as the one city to place his house and his name forever. As you read both Testaments, it is obvious that Yahweh is keenly interested in Jerusalem. Allah, on the other hand, had no interest in Jerusalem in the Koran. In fact, for most of Islamic history, Jerusalem was seen as a backwater, dirty town, of little or no value to Muslims. It wasn’t until the Jews returned there en mass that they took notice of it. In modern times, the Muslim interest in Jerusalem is political, not religious. The Koran bears this out. Only our God, Yahweh, is interested in Jerusalem; Allah is not. How can they be the same God?
When you compare Allah of the Koran with Yahweh of the Bible, it becomes clear that Allah is a distortion of Yahweh, the one and true God of Israel. Any writing that distorts the character and nature of our God is in error and is therefore to be avoided.
No matter how devout and sincere a Muslim might be, they are not worshipping the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Dr. Mike Porter, pastor Norton Presbyterian Church