Who enlightened Achtemeier and Rogers?
Posted Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Unbelievable. What a pathetic thing it is to watch once great theologians such as Jack Rogers and now Mark Achtemeier depart from well settled Biblical positions and sound and insightful teaching to endorse such nonsense. They both say that have been “enlightened,” by whom, may I ask? The last line of the wonderful hymn, “God Works In A Mysterious Way” tells us that God Himself is His own interpreter. I don’t think the Holy Spirit has had a hand in this. If not, we all know who that leaves and he must be smiling.
The fact is that they have decided to be their own self-appointed gods, write their own Scriptures, and overwrite the holy Word of almighty God. May I suggest that those who subscribe to such blasphemy dial up God’s number in prayer and ask for His approval to proceed with their faulty reasoning on matters clearly settled in Scripture. Tell me what He says.
Achtemeier’s parents, both outstanding Christian theologians, must surely be turning over in their graves. What should not be touched by a ten foot pole is anything written by either of these two and others who would denigrate God’s word for their own reasons. Since we are not authorized to judge the heart, we shall leave that matter to God Himself. Bob Gagnon has it right – and his writing and astute and well-researched observations reinforce God’s word and advance the Kingdom. Praise God for faithful disciples! Richard B. (Dick) Miller Harrisonburg, Va.
Was Achtemeier’s testimony before the Senate perjury?
Posted Tuesday, June 30, 2009
In introducing himself to the Senate, Mark Achtemeier suggests he speaks on behalf of evangelicals and the PCUSA in his support for the “Hate Crimes” legislation. In reality, he speaks for neither. The vast majority of evangelicals are politically disinclined to support overarching Federal regulation of thought. The PCUSA rejects the recognition of GLBTs as having the same status as heterosexuals within the denomination, as evidenced by the recent rejection of the proposed watering down of ordination standards. Yet Achtemeier implied to the Senate that he was speaking on behalf of both.
By definition, perjury is “the willful assertion as to a matter of fact, opinion, belief or knowledge, made by a witness in a judicial proceeding … known to such witness to be false.” (Black’s Law Dict. 6th Ed.)
How close to perjury does this come? Too close for comfort. From a legal perspective, he’d probably be able to weasel out of it on the basis of some of his carefully crafted qualifiers. Yet the damage is done: he has tried to imply to the Senate that the PCUSA and evangelicals are with him on this point, and he knows that not to be true.
He has every right to express his own opinions. But in trying to suggest his credentials are what they are not, he is standing on the line, if not crossing over it.And then there is that little command: “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” Forrest Norman Hudson, Ohio
The Judas of today’s PCUSA
Posted Tuesday, June 30, 2009
I am appalled that Mark Achtemeier continues to call himself an evangelical. And he did this under oath? He is about as far away from being an evangelical as the Earth is from the sun. Many in our denomination, though, continue to let him get by with it without challenge. His pro-gay agenda (and other progressive/liberal stances) are completely opposite from what he once claimed to espouse. He is indeed the Judas of today’s PCUSA. Virginia Parrish Atlanta
All sins should be included in the Hate Crimes Bill
Posted Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Based on Rev. Mark Achtemeier’s reasoning, all sins should be included in the Hate Crimes Bill. After all, we are born that way. The Bible even says so. “We are all sinners.” So murder is okay because the murderer was born that way! And Achtemeier teaches at a Christian seminary! I’m a cynic among other sins. But I was born that way. Art Montgomery Santa Barbara, Calif.
Time for the state to ‘get out of the wedding business’
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009
In the June 2009 edition of The Layman, Stephen Brown makes a comment that needs more interpretation: “Rev. Thomas Wilson in his April 26 article in The Presbyterian Outlook pushes the idea that government should get out of the wedding business.”
Wilson was making the point that government should not expect ministers to preside over both the civil contract of marriage and the religious covenant of marriage as is customary in the USA. This has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of traditional or non-traditional marriages – this has only to do with a real conflict of interest in the role of ministers performing marriages in the USA – and his point that in all other countries in the world except for the USA and England, there are separate ceremonies for the civil contract of marriage (presided over by a government official) and the religious ceremony (presided over by a religious official).
Properly the state should require only the civil ceremony for a legal marriage contract – and those couples who wish can have a religious ceremony which is only for the exchange of their covenant vows and the conveyance of God’s blessing and the blessing of the church.
This removes the “conflict of interest” where many of us who are ministers in the USA feel used by the state in a way that has nothing to do with our calling as ministers. Thus Wilson is suggesting that it is time for the state (government) to “get out of the wedding business” and properly manage civil marriage contracts without any involvement of ministers or other religious officials representing the church.
This change is long overdue, and is not (and should not be) a point of contention in the PCUSA. I would hope that a future commentary would give attention to this. Rev. Richard H. Lindsey Jr., pastor Southminster Presbyterian Church, Richmond, Va.
‘Whistling in the dark’
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009
Me thinks our national leadership is whistling in the dark as they walk through the cemetery. Art Montgomery Santa Barbara
Churches need to be apart from the government, mainstream
Posted Monday, June 29, 2009
I wish to share some comments about Forrest Norman’s concerns (letter to the editor, posted June 26, 2009) that pastors may be subject to legal action if they don’t perform same-sex marriages at some point in the future.
Mr. Norman noted in response to some comments by someone in the so-called progressive camp: “While the U.S. will most likely not require that a pastor perform the marriage ceremony, it is not hard to envision an activist requesting the equal rights commission to levy a fine against them for their refusal to do so. What will come first is a fine on a church which generally opens its doors to non-member marriage ceremonies, but subsequently refuses to permit its sanctuary to be used for a homosexual ‘marriage.’ Step by step.”
My question is has Norman taken a look at what the Book of Order in the PCUSA says about this? First of all it is quite explicit in saying marriage is between a woman and a man. But beyond that it states in W-4.9002-b “If the minister is convinced after discussion with the couple that commitment, responsibility, maturity or Christian understanding are so lacking that the marriage is unwise, the minister shall assure the couple of the church’s continuing concern for them and not conduct the ceremony. In making this decision the minister may seek the counsel of the session.”
In other words a minister may refuse to marry any couple based on his/her discernment after meeting with them. The session doesn’t even have to approve or disapprove, but may be consulted. And where does the U.S. government or even state governments fit into this? Nowhere.
And bottom line and what is perfectly common sense, who is going to know better than a minister if a couple of persons are ready to marry or should do so? And the PCUSA, which likes to make sure everything is covered in detail, does in this case I think. So why would a church need additional details to cover this?
Going back to the issue of government and religion I think certain facts need to be considered as well. For a few decades women have made advancements in U.S. society by their own initiatives as well as in law. However there are still many churches and denominations in the United States who do not ordain women as ministers and some also do not ordain them as elders and deacons. I’m not aware of any activist women who have sought or successfully used the U.S. legal system to change practices in U.S. churches that will not have women in leadership despite the equality of women in U.S. society. So if gay persons should ever achieve the same equality that women have in U.S. society, I seriously doubt that gay persons will be successful, should they seek to try, in making churches be just like America. Let’s hope churches aren’t just like America. Otherwise what is the point in our being in the church? We do need to be apart from the government and mainstream just as Jesus was. Earl C. Apel, deacon Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church, Cincinnati, Ohio
A more cynical perspective to membership numbers
Posted Friday, June 26, 2009
I have a more cynical perspective to “roughly the same rate.” You lost 172,869 conservatives, gained 103,488 liberals for a total swing of 276,357 members. That is “roughly” 13 percent of the total membership of 2,140,165. Interpretation – next vote on fidelity and chastity – you’re dead meat.
Roger Epps Matthews, N.C.
Is the fox telling the hens to leave the coup unlatched?
Posted Friday, June 26, 2009
The “more smoke than fire” reply (letter to the editor, posted June 24)to the suggestion that churches and pastors take steps to protect themselves from liability for refusal to perform homosexual “marriage” ceremonies is both telling and curious. It is curious because it comes from an elder at a progressive church actively seeking to change the denomination’s ordination standards and whose Web site links to That All May Freely Serve. I am sure that the elder and his church have a better understanding than most about the activist’s mind-set. The well-documented strategy of homosexual activists is to take small steps to deteriorate the status quo, all the while proclaiming that the minor changes mean nothing, and that they really don’t want anything more. But they do, and will continue to push for change, for better or worse.
While there has not yet been a legal challenge in the U.S. to a pastor refusing to conduct a homosexual marriage, the storm cloud are gathering. A videographer in New Mexico was fined by the states equal rights commission for refusing to film a “union ceremony.” Certainly the “marriage” celebrants didn’t want their ceremony besmirched by a videographer who didn’t approve of them; but it has nothing to do with that. We all know they could have found a gay videographer if they tried. The point was the legal challenge.
Likewise, pastors in Canada are being fined for speaking out against homosexuality. While the U.S. will most likely not require that a pastor perform the marriage ceremony, it is not hard to envision an activist requesting the equal rights commission to levy a fine against them for their refusal to do so. What will come first is a fine on a church which generally opens its doors to non-member marriage ceremonies, but subsequently refuses to permit its sanctuary to be used for a homosexual “marriage.” Step by step.
If the free speech rights of pastors can be challenged, and tax exempt status of churches can be challenged, it is only a matter of time before legal pressure is brought to bear on individual conservative churches for their stance against homosexuality. How many times were marriage laws challenged before a few of the cases ended up before an activist court?
The point of the original post was to alert churches to the possibility, and to prepare for the future. If cases were already occurring, it would have been an article reporting on events, not a letter recommending future action.
Finally, the reply was telling because it came from an activist church. “No need to protect yourself” it implies. Is the fox telling the hens to leave the coup unlatched? Forrest Norman Hudson, Ohio
Church membership trends are better explained in sociological terms
Posted Friday, June 26, 2009
A major story in your June, 2009 issue, “Why the Upstarts are Winners …” was at least as interesting for what it left out as for what it selectively included. If you had included the member churches in the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention), as a “mainline” or “mainstream” denomination would have had to explain why they are losing members. According to the June 24 Louisville Courier-Journal. com, where their convention is being held, their leading researcher reported that “Southern Baptists may decline by half in the next 50 years and shrink from 6 to 2 percent of the nation’s population.” Southern Baptists are older than the national average and poorly represented among racial minorities and foreign-born Americans — population segments growing much faster than the convention’s predominately white, Anglo and native-born constituency.
The Religious News Service in the Columbus Dispatch (OH) reported on June 24 that “What got more attention was a new report from the denomination’s LifeWay Research, which concluded that Southern Baptist Convention membership could drop by close to 50 percent by 2050 if it doesn’t do more to reverse its image as an aging and mostly white religious body.”
Obviously church membership trends are better explained in sociological rather than religious terms given that SBC churches are conservative and Biblically based. Note that they expelled a 125 year old affiliated congregation in Seattle for accepting gays and lesbians into membership without requiring any repentance of their sexual orientation.
Question: will you do a story on membership trends in the SBC in light of your June report on the decline of mainline church membership? Lee H. Lybarger, elder First Presbyterian Church, Delaware, Ohio
Focus on strong churches who are standing for Scriptural truth
Posted Friday, June 26, 2009
I’ve been a reader of and sometime donor to The Layman since the days of Paul Cupp, who was a member of my home church (1st and Trinity, So. Orange, N.J.). The last I heard it was a More Light Church.
After reading the June issue I thought, “the feature story would only be a feature in The Layman.” I realize that this kind of story has been the mainstay of The Layman’s offerings since the beginning, and I’ve certainly had my share of agitation from them over the years. Now, however, I wonder what purpose this kind of reporting serves? I mean, what are we, the readers, supposed to do? Are we to write letters of condolence to the pastors, sessions and congregations that have been abused? Are we to promise ourselves never to let “this” happen to us? Are we to threaten withdrawal as one elder from North Carolina does to close his letter? (He has promised himself into a box by letting his future behavior be determined by his perceived enemies).
Perhaps instead of focusing on the sad stories of malfeasance by some presbyteries, and some pastors and sessions, your editors could seek advice from the strong churches and pastors who are still functioning well and standing for Scriptural truth. Then you could pass on that advice to your readers.
I don’t think repeating in varying terms and contexts that the “church” must change will make it happen, but there may be some guidance that will help us when the “church” doesn’t change, or when it does! Gordon Jewett, H. R. Cincinnati
If statistics are the result of ‘evangelism initiative,’ cancel it immediately
Posted Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Why can’t we get straight talk and clear assessment out of our leaders in Louisville? Our 2008 denominational statistics have just been made public, and the bureaucratic spin being given by the General Assembly office is so strong as to make one nauseous.
I don’t know Eric Hoey, our relatively new GAC Director of Evangelism and Church Growth, but I have heard good things about him. Unfortunately, what he concludes from our most recent membership statistics is not only not accurate, it’s a bunch of hooey
He writes, for example, that our decline in membership is “roughly at the same rate” as in past years. Anyone with a bit of understanding about numbers will realize this is just wrong. From 2003-2006 our rate of decline hung fairly steady at around 2 percent. In 2007, after our disastrous 2006 GA meeting, it escalated to 2.5 percent (a 25 percent increase!). In 2008, the year of our most recent disastrous GA, it escalated again to 3.1 percent (another 25 percent increase in the rate of decline). Statistically speaking, we are hardly in “roughly the same rate” territory.
In a deft sleight-of-hand move, he transforms our record losses into growth: “In light of all the churches that left our denomination last year, the decline in membership should have been the largest number we have seen. To hold steady in this statistical trend demonstrates that we are growing in a slow, but steady pace.” Such analysis leaves me speechless – almost. Our rate of decline for 2008 makes it clear that last year saw the greatest percentage exodus since reunion in 1983. Since our total membership pool is smaller each year, one would expect that were we to decline at a steady rate, the actual membership loss each year would decline slightly since we would lose the same percentage of a smaller pool. Sadly, what we have seen is a jump in numerical losses, due at least in part to departing congregations. To claim that we are holding steady is ridiculously inaccurate; to trumpet that we are actually “growing in a slow, but steady pace” would be a hilarious example of Orwellian doublespeak were the reality not so sad.
Hoey implies that our new growth is due to the “Grow Christ’s Church Deep and Wide” initiative that came out of the 2008 GA. It “… created a groundswell of local and regional activity.” The statistics unfortunately do not bear this out. Looking at the last four years of statistics, in every row listed under “Gains” (Profession of faith, certificate and other) we see a straight-line decline from 2005-2008. Last year we gained 5,518 fewer members than in 2007, 21,470 fewer than we gained in 2005. If this is the result of our new GA evangelism initiative, I suggest we cancel it immediately. Growth like this will kill us.
To my theologically inclined mind, the most troubling part of Hoey’s short analysis comes in his final words underscoring the need for this new “Deep and Wide” initiative which among other things will “… cast a vision that we cannot be the same. We must do everything we can to change and reverse the decline of our church.” What an unfortunate choice of words! The underlying assumption seems to be that evangelism (or, more accurately, membership recruitment) is a necessary means to the ultimate goal of sustaining our denomination as an institution. Small wonder we are dying. Our vision does not seem to be for the glory of God, the expansion of the Kingdom of Christ, or even the salvation of lost souls. Instead, we are gearing up to gather more people into our churches so we can use them and their resources to “reverse the decline of ‘our’ church.”
May God preserve us from such provincial and misguided thinking, and grant us instead a passion for His glory that compels us to share the good news of the gospel with all who are yet outside the Kingdom. Mateen Elass, senior pastor First Presbyterian Church, Edmond, Okla.
Article on protecting pastors involves more smoke than fire
Posted Wednesday, June 24, 2009
The recent article and letters concerning the need to protect pastors from being forced to perform same-gender marriages seem to involve much more smoke than fire. The court decisions from Iowa, Connecticut, California and Massachusetts which recognized the right of same-gender couples to marry each noted that the state could not compel a religious institution to perform such a marriage. The Iowa Supreme Court went out of its way to make that point even though the argument was not raised during the case.
Secondly, can anyone point to a case in this country where a religious institution or leader has been forced by the state to marry any couple against his or her better judgment? We do not force pastors, priests, rabbis or other religious leaders who are authorized by the state to perform marriages to marry couples of differing races or faiths even though such civil marriages are legal.
Lastly, why would we imagine that any same-gender couple would want their marriage to be performed and blessed by someone who thinks what they are doing is sinful? How many of your readers sought out a pastor who disapproved of their proposed marriage to perform the ceremony? James D. Schroll Pasadena, Md.
Don’t follow advice to be more accepting of one another’s views
Posted Wednesday, June 24, 2009
I was reading The Layman Online’s report of membership losses in the PCA. What really struck me is the statement by Paul Kooistra to be more accepting of one another’s views, especially in non-essential issues, such as how to interpret the six-day creation described in Genesis.
If you follow that advice you will destroy your denomination from a spiritual standpoint. If you consider creation as a non-essential issue there is no end of what portions of Scripture which will be denied or re-interpreted in the future.
As a former member of the Christian Reformed denomination, we have seen this happen to our former beloved church and it has now become so apostate that it accepts charismatics, homosexuals, women in office, etc., and the Bible is questioned in every area. People may live as they please and are told that God loves them.
Don’t let it happen to the PCA. There are many ominous signs already. Roger Key
Individual PCUSA churches should
amend by-laws to protect pastors
Posted Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Amending the PCA Constitution to clarify the religious basis for denial of performing same-sex “marriages” is a wise step affording additional protection to pastors whose faith and consciences preclude their performing such ceremonies. There really is no question but that legal challenges will be brought against both pastors who decline to perform the ceremonies and individual churches which do not permit their sanctuaries to be used for the services. Whether it will work or not is a question which will be answered only by the status of religious liberties in our country at the time the challenge is brought. But it is wise to add that extra layer of protection.
Conservative PCUSA pastors and churches, however, should be a bit more concerned, as the PCUSA has back-peddled so far on this issue so as not to ensure that a court would construe denial of same-sex marital rites as a component of the denomination’s faith. It would therefore be wise for individual churches to ensure that either their by-laws or Articles of Incorporation reflect their stance on the sinfulness of same-sex unions. Language from the Confessing Church Movement may be incorporated into the local church’s by-laws of “purpose clause” of its Articles of Incorporation.
Additionally, while amending Articles, a church can use the opportunity to clarify its position on the PCUSA’s purported property trust, disavowing any claimed effect of the trust or reserving the right to revoke it, where allowed. (Amending Articles of Incorporation is a legal process, for which legal help is generally required; call your lawyer).
If you do not use the civil system to preserve your rights, the civil system will not preserve them. Forrest Norman Hudson, Ohio