| |
Court agrees that Olivet is and should be God’s steward of property
Posted Friday, March 12, 2010
God is so good! Just wanted to let you know that the judge in the case of the Presbytery of Ohio Valley vs. Olivet EPC has ruled on every count in Olivet's favor! We're still unpacking the implications and anticipating an appeal, but rejoice in God's provision. We are broken-hearted that we were taken to court and pray that this whole situation not reflect negatively on the Christ and His Church.
We are grateful for the verdict that the court agrees with what we had understood from the beginning – that indeed Olivet has always been and should continue to be God’s steward of this property. We are also grateful for the prayers and encouragement of our brothers and sisters throughout the country who have been following these developments. We do pray for healing for those who have been hurt in any way through this disagreement, and look forward to fulfilling God’s purpose for us in ministry.
|
Jesus did not comment specifically about homosexuality
Posted Friday, March 12, 2010
Reply to Tom Hobson in the 4 March letters.
Jesus did not comment specifically about homosexuality. In Luke and the parallel passage in Matthew, He used the Greek word ‘porneia’ which is usually translated “fornication.” This of course refers to any sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and a woman.
|
OneByOne speaks the truth in love powerfully, humbly
Posted Friday, March 12, 2010
Thanks Kristin for this loving and clear response to Ray Bagnuolo’s article. Ray emailed his article to many in Hudson River Presbytery, where he was approved for ordination in 2005, two days before our presbytery met. On Jan. 14 Hudson River Presbytery voted 50-3 in favor of gay marriage (i.e. to amend the Book of Order’s language to define marriage as also being between persons of the same gender), 49-3 to delete G-6.0106b, and 48-5 to re-write G.6.0l06b into something that no longer specifically addresses the gay ordination question. At this meeting of presbytery, I was literally the only person who spoke out against the amendments. It is truly a lonely world in this presbytery.
I tried to reach you, Kristin, by phone the day before our presbytery met but felt great reluctance in revealing to you Ray’s article because of its inflammatory and hateful tone, as well as its inaccuracies and slanderous nature. Again, thank you for your graciousness and Christ-likeness.
There was one person at this meeting on Jan. 14 who repeatedly asserted, during the dialog period and debate before vote, that ex-gay ministries such as OneByOne have been “proven repeatedly” to lead homosexuals to commit suicide. This person did not cite sources or statistics specifically but I am sure you are familiar with the argument. Would you please consider writing on this topic, too, and perhaps offer another factual and loving response?
I would like to encourage everyone who reads The Layman to consider financially supporting OneByOne. There is no other voice in our denomination that addresses the homosexual issue and “speaks the truth in love” so powerfully and humbly. The ministry needs additional funding so it can keep Kristin full-time.
|
Same-sex marriage helps reduce population
Posted Friday, March 12, 2010
Re: “Same-sex marriage hurts everyone”
I disagree with the February 2010 premise that same-sex marriage hurts everyone. On the contrary, over-population being the source of most countries’ ills, it helps reduce population. Also, I recall learning in college (WSU) biology that it is a natural behavior when over-population becomes a factor and we certainly have that.
Also, in this country there are hospital rights and inheritance rights afforded a spouse that would not be allowed a life-long partner. I think the whole issue is one of learning tolerance. Let God be the judge.
|
Commentary leaves me a little puzzled
Posted Monday, March 8, 2010
In sharing and teaching the concepts of Christianity, we often find ourselves caught between two Biblical passages, dealing with tension of seemingly conflicting messages. Your commentary “Reality check” paints the airport picture that many of us have also experienced.
Did you really mean to say that even though we have our “eternal ticket” in hand, making the trip is totally dependent on our efforts? Is it true that the passage about the widow and the missing coin is not part of your commentary? Is it true that the passage about the shepherd with 99 safe sheep but one missing animal is not part of your commentary? While it is true that the captain of the airplane is not going to climb out of the cockpit and scour the airport looking for me because I am firmly planted in Gate 42, your commentary leaves me a little puzzled about our theology.
Maybe the theology of “Reality check” sheds some light on why The Presbyterian Lay Committee is so focused on some issues that other Presbyterians do not find equally compelling.
|
PCUSA’s investing policy is concerned with justice
Posted Monday, March 8, 2010
“The Presbytery of Great Rivers is an example of the ‘brothers and sisters’ who could be hurt by the action. Great Rivers has presented a statement of impact, which was shared with the General Assembly Mission Council for its meetings this week in Louisville, Ky. Among its concerns are that Caterpillar does not make products that meet the criteria for divestment and that many members of its churches are directly linked to the company in some way."
Current PCUSA policy states that we choose not to profit from military, tobacco, gambling, firearms, etc. Our socially responsible investing policy is concerned with justice, not whether or not the corporations involved employ church members, who should be calling for their company to abide by American law (such as the Foreign Assistance Act, which the United States doesn’t enforce in regard to Israeli human rights abuses) and international human rights law.
It was Methodists and Presbyterians who work for Caterpillar who encouraged their churches not to divest in 2008, and Caterpillar sounded like they were finally ready to engage our Mission Responsibility Through Investment committee. The last two years has shown that Caterpillar wasn’t really interested in changing their policy, and seek to continue to allow their products to be used to construct the Separation Wall, destroy Palestinian homes (24,000 since 1967) and uproot olive and fruit trees (1.5 million since 1967), all acts that previous GA’s have spoken against. We have sought to engage Caterpillar for over five years now. At their last annual meeting, Caterpillar CEO Jim Owen, told the body: “If you don’t like how CAT does business, you don’t have to hold your shares.”
PCUSA statements over the last six decades have called for a just peace, but some groups portray our stances as being biased if they don’t bless Israeli control over the whole region. The church has been neutral long enough. Now’s the time to act.
|
‘Human-made’ can only apply to the confessions, not Scripture
Posted Monday, March 8, 2010
RE: Loren Golden’s letter to the editor, posted March 4, 2010
Though I am not a member of Heartland Presbytery, I was involved in writing the text of the overture in question for the session of Northside Presbyterian Church, which was then passed by the Presbytery of Detroit. I am happy to say that it has since been passed by many other presbyteries including Heartland, most recently.
I would like to thank Mr. Loren Golden who recently wrote a letter to the editor in which he expresses concern about a sentence in the rationale of the overture. Mr. Golden perhaps understandably misinterprets what may be a poorly worded sentence, and I appreciate his pointing out the lack of clarity. The sentence I wrote states, “In order to be able to rely on Jesus Christ as its head and its chief guide in all of life, the church must shed any human-made, subordinate source of authority that would bind its ability to follow where our Savior leads.” By “human-made,” I meant to refer only to the confessions, not to Scripture. As the confessions themselves make clear, they (that is, the confessions) are not inerrant or infallible, and when they err, we should follow Jesus. Perhaps naively, I thought it obvious that “human-made” can only apply to the confessions and not to Holy Scripture, which is inspired and therefore not “human-made.” But, evidently the sentence was still unclear anyway and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the matter.
Furthermore, I would point out that the amendment itself unequivocally states that Scripture is the “authoritative witness” to Christ. In addition, the rationale states, “... Chapter II identifies the church’s confessions as its guides, subordinate to the Lordship of Jesus Christ as revealed to us in Scripture alone.”
Fortunately there are several opportunities to perfect the language of the rationale between now and when G.A. votes to approve it, and I appreciate Mr. Golden’s help in doing so. (Please note however, we do not enact the rationale; only the amendment itself. Nevertheless his concerns should be noted and in my opinion the sentence can certainly be refined.)
I hope that clarifies these matters for Mr. Golden and the rest of your readers. While we may disagree about the overture itself, we do agree that Scripture is the inspired, authoritative witness to the life, death and resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ, and I would not want anyone to misunderstand my beliefs due to one poorly worded sentence.
|
Mainline denominations not helped by sympathetic judiciary
Posted Monday, March 8, 2010
I just read that the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear the La Crescenta (Episcopal) property case. This should come as no surprise. Think about it. When was the last time you met an Episcopalian washing windshields at a traffic light? No, they are usually at the top of the American social pyramid. They become Supreme Court justices. I can well imagine that if the honorable justices subscribe to any religion at all, they are likely to belong to that denomination that is being hurt by parishes bailing out and wanting to take their property with them.
The PCUSA has in the last three years lost 87 congregations, mostly to the EPC. But the PCUSA three years ago had just under 11,000 congregations, so this is a loss of less than 1 percent. So their biggest threat is not the loss of intact congregations; it is the loss of individuals, couples and families voting with their feet and walking out. The average size of a PCUSA church has declined to 200. In the years to come, many congregations will be unable to support a full-time pastor. This has enormous implications for PCUSA seminaries that are cranking out graduates loyal to the party line; they shall graduate into limbo.
Meanwhile, there will be the occasional congregation that feels strongly enough about the state of the PCUSA that they will willingly pitch the keys to the church building to the hierarchs and start meeting at the VFW hall or high school cafeteria.
And think of the PCUSA – and Episcopal – church buildings that in the future will be sold to sects, cults and heaven forbid, evangelicals.
And so in the end the mainline Protestant denominations are not really being helped by a sympathetic judiciary. Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Pewsitter can still leave any time they want to. While the denominational leaders speak cryptically of surfing contests, they are failing to win the hearts of ordinary members.
|
Overture is wrong: Scripture is not a ‘human-made, subordinate source of authority’
Posted Thursday, March 4, 2010
On Feb. 20, Heartland Presbytery, which to my profound shame is the presbytery to which my Bible-believing, Bible-preaching church belongs, passed three overtures. Two of them seek to remove G-6.0106b from the Book of Order, and the third seeks to redefine marriage from God’s definition in Genesis 2:24 in order to allow same-gender “marriage.” This, of course, is nothing new for many members of Heartland Presbytery have long sought to reverse the denomination’s Biblically-based policies regarding the ordination of practicing homosexuals and marriage.
However, in the rationale for the first of these, the authors wrote, “the hierarchy of the church’s authority ... is subverted by the current language of G-6.0106b, which substitutes for our obedience to Christ two concepts that are foreign to Reformed understanding: ‘obedience’ to Scripture and ‘conformity’ to the confessions. We do not confess, ‘Scripture is Lord’ nor ‘the Confessions are Lord. Instead, we boldly confess that ‘Christ is Lord!’” As if this radical divorce of Christ from Scripture were not enough, the authors brazenly proclaim, “In order to be able to rely on Jesus Christ as its Head and its chief guide in all of life, the church must shed any human-made, subordinate source of authority that would bind its ability to follow where our Savior leads.”
Scripture is not a “human-made, subordinate source of authority.” When I was ordained last month as a deacon in my church, I recall very clearly being asked if I “accept the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be, by the Holy Spirit, the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ in the Church universal, and God’s Word to you?” I know that the ministers and elders who serve at presbytery are asked the self-same question.
Do the authors of this heretical overture have an authoritative witness by the Holy Spirit to Jesus Christ that supersedes the Bible? Has Jesus Christ appeared to them in the flesh and contradicted His Word that the Law shall not pass away until all is accomplished (Mt. 5.17-20) and that “Scripture cannot be broken” (Jn. 10.35)? Do they realize that they have perjured themselves in claiming that God’s Word to them is a “human-made, subordinate source of authority?”
And as far as our required obedience to Scripture being “foreign to Reformed understanding,” remember that none less than John Calvin proclaimed, “This is the first clause, that we owe to the Scripture the same reverence which we owe to God; because it has proceeded from Him alone, and has nothing belonging to man mixed with it.” (Commentary on II Timothy 3:16)
|
Grave concerns about where the PCUSA is going
Posted Thursday, March 4, 2010
Re: Robert H. Dawson’s March 3 letter to the editor
Mr. Dawson,
I check The Layman Online, as well as other Presbyterian Web sites, and read the letters to their respective editors regularly. I was very intrigued by your letter and particularly the heading. As I read your letter, which I concur with you on, I was even more pleased to read towards the end, where you refer to my dad, John Leith, as a great theologian. He was great! He was more than a great/smart theologian, but a churchman, too! He never lost sight of the local church. His books and other writings are still around and a testament to him and will hopefully have an enduring influence on the church today and for generations to come. I thought you might be interested in this link to a Web site for a Foundation which my mom and dad started. You and others might find the work of this Foundation very helpful in light of all that is happening in the PCUSA today!
I love the Presbyterian Church. It is as much a part of me, as my heart, but I have grave concerns about where the denomination (at the presbytery, synod, GA level) is going, but always have hope and faith in the work of the Holy Spirit! In the words of the great hymn, "to God be the glory, great things He hath done."
Thanks again for your kind words about my dad.
|
Jesus did use a term for homosexual behavior in His sin list
Posted Thursday, March 4, 2010
If you haven’t already discovered it, I am writing to point you to a new article posted on the Presbyterian Coalition’s Web site that argues that Jesus did use a term for homosexual behavior in His sin list in Mark 7:21-23. I am hoping that it will be useful in the ongoing debate. There is a shortened, simplified version posted there as well. The article was written to answer the claim of the More Light movement that Jesus never spoke on word on the subject.
|
Keeping ‘abreast’ of the situation
Posted Wednesday, March 3, 2010
For all my 70 years I have been a proud Presbyterian. I do read The Layman on-line and have occasionally written you relative to some of the denominational insanities on which you report.
I have been sitting at my computer trying to compose an honest appraisal of the “breast” issue. For the proper words I have consulted my thesaurus, my dictionary, my Bible, my ordination promises to become an elder and any number of theological references. With great sadness I must report that I have found nothing to adequately comment on this very important issue about “breasts,” lactating or otherwise. I have closed my eyes to envision the Cross atop my church being replaced by a “lactating breast.” Nothing came to me.
So I just arrived at one conclusion. You must tell me how I might obtain tickets for the upcoming “breast” event in May. I definitely want to keep abreast of the situation. It’s the least I can do. Tell me, please, from whence come these candidates for the litter box who are even capable of thinking up these inanities? Since I really do believe God has a sense of humor perhaps He sends these odd folk to amuse us and sharpen our minds. Tis a great mystery! I am, however, pleased that the writings of the great theologian John Leith are on hand to keep an honest and intelligent report on the activities these “off the wall” people. (I was going to say “whack-jobs” but I doubt you would print it!).
Were I not a member of Atlanta’s Peachtree Presbyterian Church I might consider Buddhism! And we wonder why our membership roles are not what they used to be
|
Don’t go Chicken Little over a misinterpretation of data
Posted Wednesday, March 3, 2010
I applaud the Mission Statement and Objectives of the Presbyterian Lay Committee, but am dismayed you jumped to the excitable and erroneous conclusion that “more than half of PCUSA Presbyterians reject Jesus as sole savior,” as rather shrilly proclaimed by the page 2 article (and highlighted in the front page “In this issue” box) of the February 2010 Layman.
The article reported nearly half of PCUSA pastors (45 percent) and a majority of specialized clergy (60 percent) surveyed disagree that “only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved.” Approximately 1 in 5 in both categories answered “neutral” or “not sure,” making the totals that do not “agree” with the statement as 65 percent for pastors and 78 percent for specialized clergy.
I am a pastor who believes with all my heart Jesus is the sole savior, yet I am one who checked “Disagree.” Yes, we certainly can’t ignore Jesus’ clear affirmation that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and no one comes to the Father but through Him. However, my problem was in the phrasing of the survey question itself. The question did not ask if Jesus was the only way of salvation, a tenet of faith I wholeheartedly endorse. The question asked if only followers of Jesus will be saved, which is a different question.
There were basically two problems which caused me to check “Disagree,” and I’m sure I’m not alone in this. First, maybe I was being too much of a literalist, but taken at face value, the statement asserted no person can be saved unless that person followed Jesus as Lord … which just wasn’t possible to do, say, before 30 A.D. or so.
Second, where in the Scriptures does it say the sole Savior cannot sovereignly save someone who has never had the earthly opportunity to know and/or follow Him? What about the untold billions over the millennia who have never heard? What about the potentially equal number of those who only heard or saw and/or were repelled by a grotesque caricature of genuine Christianity?
When Jesus said, “I have other sheep who do not belong to this fold,” I think among other things He meant at least this: the God revealed in Jesus Christ has made clear He will embrace anyone He chooses to embrace. Grace is His sovereign initiative. How the sole Savior does that, in what religious trappings He does that, or even if He does it outside of all religions is really the business of a God whose ways are not our ways. We should know enough about God and His grace revealed in Jesus Christ to trust He will be eminently fair, just and sovereign, and that He is not limited to our finite understanding and knowledge.
There are enough troubling issues in our beloved denomination as it is without adding to the discord by going Chicken Little over a misinterpretation of data.
Sincerely,
|
Riding the wave of political correctness
Posted Wednesday, March 3, 2010
It is with a sad heart that I read comments of Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons and Moderator Bruce Reyes-Chow from your article summarizing their addresses to the General Assembly Mission Council. The PCUSA is called to be a light until the world (see Matthew 5:14-16). In this spirit, the PCUSA should strive to spread the Word of God, and saving grace of Christ, through the Bible. The rise of radical and aggressive Islam, coupled with growing atheism in the United States, Canada and Europe, are warning signs that the PCUSA must take its role as a light unto the world very seriously. Unfortunately, PCUSA leadership appears unable, or unwilling, to abandon an agenda that distances the PCUSA from many Biblical standards in exchange for a “wave” of politically correct ideas. In the end, this agenda makes the PCUSA look divided and ashamed over the very Biblical standards that it hopes to communicate to non-believers and other Christians.
The “surfing” comments are just another euphemism from PCUSA leadership for policies or actions that compromise the PCUSA in the vain hope of currying favor from the “wave” of politically correct opinion shared by cultural elites and academics. This “wave” is out of touch with the majority of Americans, and Christians throughout Latin America and Africa.
As a former surfer myself, I know there are several aspects to the surfing euphemism that correctly describe the direction of the PCUSA over the past 30 to 40 years. Much like the PCUSA – which has been all too willing to sacrifice its principals to accommodate political correctness – a surfer has very little ability to control the direction of the wave and is forced to ride the wave wherever it takes him or her. Waves typically last only a matter of seconds, crash into the beach and then disappear into the sand or water. The surfer must then make a difficult and exhausting trip through the breakers to catch another wave.
The PCUSA has expended substantial human and financial resources in its quest to surf fleeting waves of political correctness. The PCUSA has no need to “surf the wave,” and its financial and human resources are much better spent encouraging its members and others to stand on Christ the solid rock.
The PCUSA contains many fine Christians, and I am sure that Parsons and Reyes-Chow have only the best intentions for the PCUSA. However, “surfing” political correctness is a risky proposition. This is especially true for a Church that has suffered 40 years of frightening membership losses amongst existing members, and has been ineffective at developing new believers. Until the PCUSA leadership, and its members, are willing to openly stand for, and promote, Biblical standards, the PCUSA continues to miss its calling and risks surfing itself into ever more dangerous waters.
|
Seek a life that bears a consistent coherency to the text, spirit of Scripture
Posted Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Chris Vogel’s letter [posted Feb. 26, 2010] comparing the present debate over homosexuality to that of slavery is spot on as long as we align the analogy properly. Abolitionists were those who opposed a practice that had always been morally questionable but enjoyed widespread support in the confederate culture. The pro-slavery faction could not find anything in Scripture explicitly condemning slavery, so they took non-explicit-condemnation as a kind of endorsement, and accused the abolitionists of lacking legitimate foundation to judge those who wanted to participate in the slave trade. The abolitionists’ appeals to themes from the exodus, along with broader references to the clear spirit of the text, went nowhere. Slave owners were going to do what they wanted, and remained unwilling to take a stand up and against the popularism of slavery for the good of the Gospel.
Then as now, the enduring position came not from proof-texting, but seeking the spirit of the text. Although Scripture fails to explicitly condemn slavery, it is clear that slavery is not liked. If we are to be a Biblical people, we need to allow our hearts to be shaped by Scripture’s spirit as well as its specifics, so in maturity we come to like what Scripture likes, and dislike what Scripture dislikes.
Today’s abolitionists address a popular, wayward sexualism that will in time be left behind. We should pray for the day when we look back and wonder why such a fuss was made over homosexuality, and always seek a life as a church that bears a consistent coherency to the text and spirit of Scripture.
|