Why doesn’t Louisville stand up for anything associated with God?
Posted Friday, November 30, 2007
God knows that we need to get back to God! Let’s push the pledge of our flag – in God we trust. Why does Louisville not stand up for and speak out to protect anything associated with God?
Margaret Freeburg Huntingdon, Pa.
Liberalism a ‘non-Christian movement seeking to cannibalize and replace Christianity’
Posted Thursday, November 29, 2007
During my days among the Christian Churches/Church of Christ (I attended one of their colleges), I was assured over and over again that – unlike us Calvinists – they had no creed. That, of course, was nonsense; they did indeed have a creed, it was just that no one had ever written it down anywhere.
When every CC/CoCer I ever ran into held exactly the same view on things like baptism, the order of grace and faith, divine foreknowledge, the authority of the Scriptures, etc., and often even expressed these views in exactly the same words, it was obviously a creedal movement. And well it should have been. Any movement by definition requires a coherent worldview to hold it together and give it impetus.
Liberalism is a movement. It is a non-Christian movement seeking to cannibalize and replace Christianity (rather than a variant creed within Christian ranks, like the Campbellite “Restoration Movement”), but it is a movement. And, as such, it does indeed have an inner coherent creed.
Mrs. Foote [Letters, November 27, 2007] seems to suggest that liberalism lacks a unified worldview and that I am “creating a straw man” when I affirm it does indeed have one – one that all its adherents conform to and operate from, and defines such things as truth, fantasy, good, evil, etc. Personally, I think such a disingenuous claim has less to do with the hay in Iowa as it does with that which with we fertilize our fields. No organized movement can survive without a creed, and liberalism definitely has one.
I think it would be an interesting exercise if we here [in the letters section of] The Layman Online were to pool our thoughts and write out liberalism’s creed. This would be a serious endeavor; although Mrs. Foote seems to see them behind every tree, we should avoid creating “straw man” propositions and putting them in the mouth of our tormentors. Rather, we should simply expose to the light what they really do believe and teach, and let such vile filth be seen for what it really is.
To begin the project, I would point out that, within the body of the religion proper, there are two variant creeds, but both built on the same naturalistic worldview. One is objectivist, rooted in the modernist school of thought, while the other is subjectivist, rooted instead in post-modernism.
Rev. Russ Westbrook, teaching elder Riverside Presbyterian Church, PCA
Ramming her beliefs down our throat
Posted Thursday, November 29, 2007
As a member of the Presbyterian Church (USA), which celebrates its status as a connectional church – which means that what is done or proclaimed by part of the church is done by the whole – I was stunned by this comment from the news article about the notorious so-called homosexual evangelist Janie Sphar (for whom I have coined the word “kakangelist,” meaning bearer of bad news that contradicts the Gospel of Jesus Christ):
“‘Nobody has anything but admiration for Janie Spahr,’ says Stephen Taber, a San Francisco lawyer representing the presbytery and prosecuting the case against Spahr.”
Wrong! Don’t you dare speak for me, Stephen Taber.
I am a PCUSA minister and I have nothing but contempt for someone who has taken vows to uphold and be guided by our Constitution, yet openly and willfully violates not only our standards, but the very Word of God on which they are built. The woman lacks enough integrity to resign her ordination in an organization whose standards she cannot uphold, while insisting on ramming her beliefs down our throat and bringing scandal on the Church of Jesus Christ.
May the day come when God’s faithful people will rise up and say, “Enough is enough” and cast out the pagans, perverts and prevaricators among us.
Rev. Bill Pawson Westminster Community Church, Canton, OH
Church trustees owe no duty to the presbytery
Posted Thursday, November 29, 2007
In the course of my representation of a number of churches, I have observed that one difficult part in the education of churches and presbyteries has been to make clear the difference between the congregation (an ecclesial body) and the corporation (a jural creation of the state). Assuming that Timberridge is incorporated, the document requests of Greater Atlanta Presbytery are an interesting example of the confusion that many folks have in that regard.
The presbytery purports to authorize an administrative commission, a creation of the ecclesial presbytery, to demand that the trustees of the corporation hand over to the administrative commission:
“[T]he minutes of … the trustees. …
“[A]ny correspondence from the … the trustees … to the congregation.
“[A]ny correspondence between any of the above-mentioned bodies.”
One must wonder: Under what theory does the administrative commission or the presbytery have the right to unilaterally obtain the records of a Georgia corporation? The trustees owe no duty to the presbytery. In fact, their fiduciary duty flows to the corporation only. Providing proprietary documents to an entity whose interests are clearly adverse to the corporation and its members would be a classic example of breach of fiduciary duty. I
am aware of at least one instance in which an administrative commission attempted to assume original jurisdiction by removing the pastor and session and then wrote to the Board of Trustees “directing” it to immediately withdraw its suit to quiet title to its property. The board promptly wrote back, reminding the administrative commission that it was the Board of Directors of a [state] corporation and was answerable only to the corporation. That was the correct response. The case soon settled.
It was the Presbyterian Church (USA) and its predecessors that demanded that congregations resort to the protection of the states and form corporations. Having done so, those corporations are now asked by the PCUSA and its presbyteries to act as if no such action was taken. They have no authority over those corporations and they need to remember that.
One final thought about the Timberridge situation. The administrative commission is empowered to “investigate any contact by the pastor or church with the movement called ‘New Wineskins.’ This would include investigating any attendance at New Wineskins events or conferences.” Oh, my. Beware that slippery slope.
The “movement called ‘New Wineskins'” is actually an incorporated association, the New Wineskins Association of Churches. It is one of many such associations and organizations made up of churches and pastors who seek some particular change in the PCUSA.
Obviously, Louisville and its minions do not care much for the one renewal organization that has moved past the decades-old “talk about it” stage to the “do something” stage. They view NWAC as a bunch of troublemakers who are disrupting their realm. Hence, one part of the PCUSA’s response plan is to retaliate against pastors and congregations that have looked at or participated in New Wineskins.
That is probably not the precedent that they want to establish. There are at least as many folks in the PCUSA who view members of other groups – groups that year after year attempt to thwart the will of the majority through repetitive attempts to amend the Book of Order’s ordination standard – as equally or even more disruptive. Do Greater Atlanta Presbytery and the PCUSA really want to set the precedent for prosecuting pastors and congregations that support, e.g., the Covenant Network, TAMFS or More Light Presbyterians? A slippery slope, indeed.
Michael R. ‘Mac’ McCarty
A reply to the letter by Larry Brown on Barth and Busch
Posted Thursday, November 29, 2007
When I saw the headline given to the interview of Eberhard Busch, I knew that there would be all sorts of misunderstandings. First, however, readers need to know that Eberhard Busch was the last secretary Karl Barth had and, furthermore, wrote the definitive biographical work on Barth that is well worth reading and owning.
When Busch stated that we do not believe in the Bible but in God, he was not attempting to undermine the authority of Scripture. I have heard Busch lecture on the nature of preaching and his point was that we should preach expositionally from the Bible on the basis of the lectio continua method (in other words, through whole books of Scripture rather than in snippets of Scripture handed to us by the lectionary). In further conversation with Busch, I found that his preferred title as a minister is VDM, the old abbreviation used to designate one as a minister. It stands for the Latin, Verbi Dei Minister, or minister of the Word of God.
When Busch states that we do not believe in the Bible, but in God, he is not trying to deflate the Bible. Indeed, in the Apostle and Nicene Creeds the one in whom we confess our faith is the Triune God. When Scripture is referenced in both the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, it is to state that our faith is in accordance with Scripture. Again, something that Busch has and does emphasize. However, creedally, we confess that our faith in is the Triune God, and thus our belief in the authority of Scripture flows from the reality of the Triune God.
Thus, a “liberal” reading of Busch’s statement would not be fair to him.
While I often appreciate the perspectives and comments of Larry Brown [Letters, November 28, 2007], I must take issue with his remark that, “It seems to me that all he [Barth] really did was rediscover and repackage 18th century deism, with its ‘clock winder God.'” While there are aspects of Barth’s theology that I do not agree with, a remark like this makes me wonder how much of Barth that Dr. Brown has studied. That remark is patently absurd and unfair.
Rev. Walter L. Taylor pastor, Oak Island Presbyterian Church, Oak Island, N.C.
I hope and pray that Atlanta Presbytery learns a lesson’ from Timberridge case
Posted Thursday, November 29, 2007
Let me first state for the record that the following is my personal viewpoint and is not meant to represent anyone’s opinion but my own.
The last time I woke up in the country, we still had a few freedoms. Unless something has changed, we all have the right and the freedom to attend any meeting or conference concerning any religion in this country without persecution, whether it be New Wineskins, Atlanta Presbytery or even some cult following (Note: I’m not implying or associating any group as a cult, just making a point).
It’s the pompous and arrogant attitude that the Atlanta Presbytery has adopted that has driven a wedge between it and the members of Timberridge Presbyterian church. What started out as a quest to secure a property deed turned into a David and Goliath tale. The leadership of the Presbytery of Greater Atlanta, which tried to bully a small country church by using the excuse that its pastor was not fulfilling his vows of upholding the peace and unity of the denomination, tried stopping the church leaders from trying to keeping the property that is rightfully theirs. (Read “http://layman.wpengine.com/discern/faqs-and-urgent-issues/” – Atlanta Presbytery is following the procedure verbatim).
So what if the pastor visited a Wineskins conference? So what if other church members attend a Wineskins conference? If Atlanta Presbytery wants to single out the Rev. Allison for that, they better check out who else attended, as well. I’m sure their witch hunt would grow quite significantly. Atlanta Presbytery’s reactions leave me to believe that they’re afraid of something and are acting over-defensively.
I have been a member of Timberridge for over 25 years and have served my church as a deacon for three years and as an elder for nine years. I have attended many presbytery meetings. I am saddened at how things have devolved over the past 20 years. Political correctness seems to have overridden the Word of God in many cases. But that’s another road I won’t go down at this time.
My point is that this whole fiasco could have been avoided if the Atlanta Presbytery had not acted like a bully. They say we rebuffed them. We did, under advisement of our attorneys. Read “The Louisville Papers.” If we had told them we were trying to secure the ownership of our property, a commission would have been immediately formed, they would have removed the pastor and leadership and taken the property, simple as that. Atlanta Presbytery will deny that this would have happened. I believe it would have, as it’s happened in other parts of this country.
Timberidge has a long history going back before the Civil War. Timberridge has always paid its own way. We have never received any financial help from anyone other than our members and friends.
I don’t believe Timberridge wants to be a forerunner for some of the other 109 churches under Atlanta Presbytery that are sitting back watching and waiting to see how it all turns out. When we voted this past Sunday to disaffiliate from the Presbytery of Greater Atlanta, we all knew the consequences. We knew we could lose everything we’ve built and invested in. We would have never voted to leave had we not been forced into a corner by the actions and attitude of the Atlanta Presbytery.
The 200-plus members who voted together are Timberridge Church, whether we’re in that same building or not. We don’t know where we’ll meet if the court decision goes against us, but we’ll meet somewhere. God will provide that for us if need be.
I hope and pray that Atlanta Presbytery learns a lesson from this. I pray that they learn that continued pompous and arrogant attitudes toward the people that support them will cause them to lose more members from a denomination that’s losing more and more members nationwide each year. I pray that God’s will be done.
Ken Waller
A reply regarding electing commissioners to general assembly
Posted Thursday, November 29, 2007
Regarding the letter by Donna Rickey [Letters, November 28, 2007]: Unless the bylaws of her presbytery specifically state that the nominated commissioners cannot be asked questions before election, they can be asked questions. Questions may always be asked of candidates.
Where one might cross the line is if one asks the candidates how they will vote on a particular issue. The candidate may be asked their current opinion or position on an issue. Further nominations from the floor are always in order.
The presbytery executive has no power to say what can or cannot be done on the floor of presbytery. A presbytery executive is an employee of the presbytery. He/she is not an officer of the presbytery. We give presbytery executives entirely too much power by our assumptions about what the executive’s job entails.
It is the moderator who has the power to rule on such a question. The stated clerk, as parliamentarian, can be asked her opinion. The body may overrule the moderator. Given what Ms Rickey said about worship at her presbytery, and the political climate, I think she has a hard row to hoe in her presbytery.
Robert Campbell pastor , Tully Memorial Presbyterian Church, Sharon Hill, Pa.
Who do you say Jesus is?’
Posted Wednesday, November 28, 2007
I just read the interview with Eberhard Busch in which he quoted Karl Barth as saying, “We don’t believe in the Bible. We believe in God.”
Well, Paul did say in Romans 1 that creation affirms that there is a God, so men are without an excuse.
But then, who do you say Jesus is? C.S. Lewis observed that Jesus is ether a liar, a lunatic, or else exactly who He said He was. Some modern theologians drive a wedge between the Christ of faith and the Christ of history. But if Jesus is not “fully God and fully man (Council of Chalcedon, AD 451),” why continue with any semblance of Christianity?
And what did Jesus say about Scripture? His answer to the Sadducees: “Are you not in error not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God?” (Mark 12:24) was typical. He consistently answered His critics with Scripture, knowing that both they and He took them to be authoritative and reliable. His enemies never accused Him of misusing Scriptures or of having too high a view of them.
And so, Jesus (assuming He really is divinity) either:
1. was right about the nature of Scripture, or
2. knew they were human writings, but accommodated Himself to the prevailing belief system of the day, or
3. He emptied Himself of the knowledge that they contained error when He became man.
To my way of thinking, those who discredit the Bible dishonor Jesus, of whom the Bible speaks. Those who go to church, but neither believe in the Bible nor the full deity of Jesus, may be wonderful human beings, as human beings go, but they should be brutally honest with themselves, stop playing church and become Buddhists, Druids or anything other than Christians.
I know that Barth is considered to be the most important theologian of the 20th century, but it seems to me that all he really did was rediscover and repackage 18th century deism, with its “clock winder God.”
I also know that we evangelicals often are accused of “bibliolotry.” But going back to Paul: “Although they (humanistic philosophers) claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles (Romans 1:21-24).”
By the way, in v. 27, Paul revealed himself to be a “homophobe.” But, of course, that gets explained away using the most tortured of hermeneutics. There really is nothing new under the sun.
Larry Brown African Bible College , Lilongwe, Malawi
A reply regarding presbytery representation
Posted Wednesday, November 28, 2007
It was refreshing to read your article about questioning the commissioners to general assembly. I raised the question to my presbytery executive and was told there would be no opportunity to question the commissioners before the vote. The only way that we could do that is to change the rules before the next general assembly.
I have just recently begun the fight to try to open up presbyteries to the members of churches. It seems that those who have been on the same committees for years try to keep others out … especially when your views differ from theirs. I was shocked a couple of presbytery meetings ago when a woman minister prayed to Mother God. No one seemed to be upset by this action. Please continue to print articles of this nature.
Donna Rickey
A response to the letter by Jennifer Kirkbride
Posted Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Jennifer Kirkbride [Letters, November 21, 2007] makes what seems at first glance a good point regarding the importance of having both the Word of God and the Holy Spirit involved in making important decisions.
Her thought was in response to a remark made by Anita M. Cummings regarding discernment that will take place in the case of Paul Capetz being reinstated.
Ms. Krikbride made the following comment: “You have to have both, it being “according to the Word of God” and “the leading of the Holy Spirit.” This is where the progressives err and bring heresy to our denomination.
“May God continue to bless His Word and may it continue to be foremost in any discernment process that our denomination undertakes. ”
Ms. Kirkbride correctly stated that the Book of Order notes: “A church reformed, always reforming, according to the Word of God and the leading of the Holy Spirit.” I decided to take a look at the latest version of the Book of Order since I haven’t read that for a couple of years. I will share what I find of interest.
First of all, Ms. Kirkbride uses the term “His Word,” whereas the Book of Order says consistently “his Word.” The difference is in the capitalization of the word “his.” A few other writers in your forum also use “His Word.” It may seem a small detail but, in reading the text, I realize how it does make a difference in how one would pronounce the phrase and even interpret it.
A good reference in the Book of Order is G-1.0301(a) that states: “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship.”
The opening of our Book of Order (G-1.0100) correctly puts things into perspective in stating: “All power in heaven and earth is given to Jesus Christ by Almighty God, who raised Christ from the dead and set him above all rule and authority, all power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. God has put all things under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and has made Christ Head of the Church, which is his body.”
Note that power has not been given exclusively to any writings or what we refer to as Scriptures or the Bible. In fact, the Book of Order, I think, makes it clear that Jesus is the Word by this following statement regarding the Confessions in G-2.0200: “These confessional statements are subordinate standards in the church, subject to the authority of Jesus Christ, the Word of God, as the Scriptures bear witness to him.”
Note that the Scriptures are a witness to Christ, who is the Word. The Scriptures are not “The Word” or “His Word.” Witnesses are those who observed and tell what they saw and experienced. Witnesses are not the literal recordings, but second parties. Yet, their accounts, of course, are important.
Note that G-2.0200 also includes: “The church affirms “Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda;” that is, “The church reformed, always reforming,” according to the Word of God and the call of the Spirit.
About Scripture, refer to W-2.2001, which states: “The church confesses the Scriptures to be the Word of God written, witnessing to God’s self-revelation. Where that Word is read and proclaimed, Jesus Christ the Living Word is present by the inward witness of the Holy Spirit.” Note that the Word includes Scriptures left to us by human witnesses. Word also includes the Living Word, Jesus Christ, through a witness not of this earth – the Holy Spirit. W-2.2008 states: “The Word is also proclaimed through song in anthems and solos based on scriptural texts, in cantatas and oratorios which tell the biblical story, in psalms and canticles, and in hymns, spirituals, and spiritual songs which present the truth of the biblical faith. Song in worship may also express the response of the people to the Word read, sung, enacted, or proclaimed. Drama and dance, poetry and pageant, indeed, most other human art forms are also expressions through which the people of God have proclaimed and responded to the Word. Those entrusted with the proclamation of the Word through art forms should exercise care that the gospel is faithfully presented in ways through which the people of God may receive and respond.”
Note that “Word” is capitalized, whereas “biblical” is not.
W-1.1004 makes distinctions in what “Word” includes: “Scripture – the Word written, preaching – the Word proclaimed, and the Sacraments – the Word enacted and sealed, bear testimony to Jesus Christ, the living Word. Through Scripture, proclamation, and Sacraments, God in Christ is present by the Holy Spirit acting to transform, empower, and sustain human lives.”
G-1.0100 (c) says it best, I think: “Christ gives to his Church its faith and life, its unity and mission, its officers and ordinances. Insofar as Christ’s will for the Church is set forth in Scripture, it is to be obeyed. In the worship and service of God and the government of the church, matters are to be ordered according to the Word by reason and sound judgment, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.”
Note that “Scripture” and “Word” are used here implying, I think, that they have two separate meanings. In fact, I didn’t see any clear evidence in our constitution where “Scripture” and “Word” are one and the same. Rather, “Word” includes other aspects that are important.
In closing, I think this is very important to remember. Yes, there are differences between how conservatives and liberals express their faith in Jesus Christ. However, the bottom line is they both have faith in Jesus Christ. The Book of Order makes it quite clear that Jesus Christ is the foundation of our faith and our denomination. And, contrary to popular belief, liberals do not throw the Bible in the garbage can as though it no longer has any relevance. We may not refer to it as “His Word,” but it is not accurate to claim that we don’t consider it to be part of “Word.”
Ms. Kirkbride notes that we liberals err and are bringing heresy to our denomination. Well, per the Book of Order, I don’t quite see it that way, although I do believe being labeled a heretic is not all that bad. It does challenge one to continue to take a look at where one is on the journey of faith with Jesus. Needless to say, no one is perfect and, in the end, we are all basically heretics at one time or another. Otherwise we would be the same as God, which is a heresy, is it not?
Earl C. Apel member , Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church , Cincinnati, Ohio
A response regarding marriage
Posted Tuesday, November 27, 2007
I read with such amazement of those wanting to eliminate marriage, which is a covenant between and one man and one woman, and substituting a covenant between two people. Which two people? A man and a man? A woman and a woman? A he/she to a she/he? Transgendered? A cross dresser?
Can the session of Govans Presbyterian Church define what is meant by a covenant between two people? Can the same session give Biblical authority to the same? Can the same session give book, chapter and verse for such an overture? I thought so – the session of Govans Presbyterian Church cannot since the same session did not cite book, chapter and verse.
To the session of Govans Presbyterian Church, where is your authority?
There is a place for those who seek to destroy marriage described in Revelation 20 and 21. How these people are so blind, led by their father, the devil, and these people are no less different than the religious leaders of Christ’s day, white tombstones. Liberalism of this flavor contradicts God’s purpose of marriage, and of whom marriage has been designed, one man and one woman. Nothing else. End of story.
Louis Stephen Nowasielski Wilmington, Del.
Christians are being persecuted
Posted Tuesday, November 27, 2007
There is an active conspiracy to persecute Christians and expunge Christian religion from public life. Since Biblical times, followers of Jesus Christ have often suffered and been put to death.
In modern times, Christians have been persecuted, even killed, for being in the wrong country. Even in our own country, this conspiracy manifests itself by public policy. The supreme court of a certain state has ruled that the two-parent heterosexual marriage is no longer the law of the land. Another state has already passed laws that openly promote homosexual, bisexual, transgender and other deviant lifestyles. One of its bills prohibits the funding of programs that do not support deviant sexual practices. Also, a U.S. District Court rules that “One Nation Under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.
There is even a “Christian” denomination that persecutes those who want to be obedient to the Word of God. It is the Presbyterian Church (USA). Last year, it defied the Biblical mandate regarding sexual behavior. Ordination of homosexuals is now permissible.
Those churches that are leaving or want to leave the PCUSA for violating the Word of God are now being persecuted over property rights. If you leave this denomination, you will forfeit rights to the property you paid for, and we will seize the property of those who disobey this mandate, so sayeth the highest officials in the denomination.
It is very clear that many churches in the PCUSA are being persecuted for being faithful to the Word of God. It is also clear that many of those churches remaining in the PCUSA are being unfaithful to the Word of God.
Jack Vanderbleek Elder , Northeast Presbyterian Church, St. Petersburg, Fla.
A reply regarding seminary education
Posted Tuesday, November 27, 2007
“Ms. Foote wrote: ‘The point of the [seminary] process is not to tell the students that they must believe A or that they can’t believe B but, rather, to help the student develop a firm, reasoned basis for their faith so that he or she will be able to speak with some amount of authority when they are in a congregational setting.'”
No, I wrote that the point of the process of challenging seminarians’ beliefs in the first year was not to get them to be carbon copies of their professors, but to get them to think about why they believe what they believe.
And I thought my seminary did a very good job of helping me to learn what beliefs are correct and what beliefs are incorrect. I did pass my Reformed Theology Ord on the first try, so I must have had some inkling about right doctrine and wrong doctrine.
Rev. Westbrook: I know that Iowa is a farm state, but I had no idea that they grew enough hay to make that big a strawman.
Where are these liberals that you are talking about? I’m not one, and I never met one at seminary, among the students or the professors. If they were building shrines to Darwin, Marx, Freud or Steinem, they were doing it in the privacy of their own homes and not bringing them to the classroom. The prophets we spent time studying included Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Amos.
It’s interesting that you take issue with my implying that you might give some primacy to the KJV, but are ready and willing to paint all liberals with a broad brush. It’s pretty clear that everyone who has responded to my letters on this subject has been willing to make some fairly huge jumps to conclusions about what I believe without any evidence beyond their idea that I’m a liberal to guide them.
I also wonder how you would reconcile Rev. Seng’s assertion that liberals will never say what is a right belief or a wrong belief with your assertion that all liberals believe only one thing and demand that everyone toe the line of that belief.
Meghan Foote Greeley, Colo.
In support of Rev. Seng’s comments
Posted Tuesday, November 27, 2007
This is in support of Rev. Seng’s comments [Letters, November 21, 2007].
The negative effects of the “let’s tear down their faith so they can build it up” approach to religious instruction in Presbyterian Church (USA) institutions is nothing new. I was thrown for a loop by it way back in September of 1960 at Hanover College. I think it was the first day of my first class in religion – Survey of the Old Testament – that my doctorate-possessing professor had the 15-to-20 of us sitting in a circle. He proceeded to ask us each, in turn, something like, “Upon what do you base your faith?” No matter what the response – and most were solid, conservative, Bible-honoring Christian replies – he would respond such as, “Well, I don’t know if you would want to base your faith on that because. …”
By the time the class was over, just about everything we had been taught about God, Jesus and the Bible in our home churches was in a shambles on the floor. When a doctoral-possessing professor tells green freshmen and sophomores that what you were taught by well-meaning mommies and daddies and Sunday school teachers was, in essence, so much uninformed hooey, it makes an impact that doesn’t strengthen faith. It’s like learning the “truth” about Santa, et. al., all over again. Just another fairy tail. Been hoodwinked again.
Then, of course, one goes on to learn that the Bible wasn’t written by those whom the Bible says it was written by, that it wasn’t written when it was supposed to have been, that many of Daniel’s prophetic passages were written after the fact …, I could go on, but you know the drill.
I think the thing that now galls me the most is that many years later, after having spent a number of years wandering in the atheist’s wasteland, is finding out that even before I was in college conservative Biblical scholars had already provided sound reasons to counter higher criticism and the documentary hypothesis. I doubt that this information is made available even today in the denominational colleges and seminaries. Would it not be so much better to show students the reasons that they can believe and trust their Bible as being what is, the very written Word of God, extremely close to the original autographs and trustworthy down to the word, jot and tittle? I’ll bet other denominations do, and that those which do are growing.
Our denomination is dying because we don’t follow the instruction book. Christ talked to a number of churches in Revelation and warned them to get back to basics or He would pull the lamp stand. Maybe we need to take that to heart.
I have been in this denomination or its predecessors, more on than off, since the mid-50s and it’s the same stuff, year after year. We spend so much time arguing among ourselves that we don’t have the time or energy or joy to spread the Good News that Jesus Christ really is the Son of God, who came to earth in the flesh and paid the price for our sins so we can be united with Him and God the Father in His presence, and that there is going to be a Second Coming when thing are going to get a lot better for believers, but that those who aren’t believers are going to have a serious problem. Our responsibility is to witness to what Christ has done and show the world how the Gospel is the Good News – that God has cleared the way to Himself and to be able so show those of no or other faiths that they don’t have to work their way to God or to perfection or whatever. Jesus did it. We just need to accept it.
But that does include the need to recognize that the Bible is what it says it is, the Word of God, and that God is smart enough to be able to communicate in language that He intended. No hidden meanings, just a plain language interpretation works well. What the Bible calls sin is sin. If we could figure that out, a lot of the current problems would go away. But they won’t because some are like the terrorists in Iraq in that they won’t recognize that the battle was fought and the other side won. No, they ‘gotta’ go on and on and on dragging the whole denomination through this stuff year after year.
I fear the result is that much time that could have been spent evangelizing is being wasted. Many who could have heard won’t have heard because we are spinning our wheels, and we will be like the watchmen on the wall who failed to sound the alarm. The blood of those who perish may well be on our heads.
Melvin W. Hansen elder, First Presbyterian Church of DuPage , Bolingbrook, Ill.
I’ve never been so embarrassed to be Presbyterian’
Posted Tuesday, November 27, 2007
I can’t help but wonder what the rest of the world thinks as it less-than-occasionally glances the church’s way to see what it’s up to. “Yep … still up to the same old stuff. They’re so busy arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin that it only confirms my suspicion that they have nothing life-changing to share with me.”
As Reggie McNeal said recently, “The world is looking for God, and we give them church.” To which the world responds with a collective, “Thanks, but no thanks!” To which many life-long Christians are even now saying, “Thanks, but no thanks!”
“But we’re getting our own house in order! We can’t abide by that godless bureaucratic bunch in Louisville that makes it hard for us to be a faithful people! Once the world sees that we’re not one of those liberal, open-minded, gay-loving congregations – and actually break away from the like – non-Christians will flock to our doors, and Jesus will be happier with us! You’ll see! That’s why our denomination has been sliding into numerical oblivion!”
So, one by one, our “faithful” congregations are pulling out of the denomination, decrying the attempts by lawyers in Louisville to make it difficult to depart with the property. Of course, no one on the side of the “faithful” would ever do anything so underhanded as attempting to find ways around the Book of Order’s longstanding by-laws, or the rationale behind them. And heaven forbid that The Layman should in any way misrepresent those letters by cherry-picking portions of the entire text. Never! We’re the “faithful ones!”
It sure is a good thing that we “faithful” ones can look Jesus straight in the eyes and say, “We’ve never lied, cheated, stolen, used your name in vain, committed adultery, been gluttonous, materialistic, greedy, or arrogant, neglected the needs of the poor, taken advantage of others, walked by brothers and sisters in need, hated a brother or sister, failed to bless and pray for our enemies, and stuff.”
Yep, we’re a moral bunch and we have the moral authority to bolt in such a way. In fact, we’re so sure of our cause that we don’t even have to talk with the people our stances will exclude.
With the risk of sounding like a Dixie Chick (fortunately, I have no CDs to stomp on), I’ve never been so embarrassed to be Presbyterian for reasons that have nothing to do with Louisville.
Tom Patterson Seattle, Wash.