Comments for To Leave or Not to Leave: An Open Letter to fellow Presbyterians at http://pres-outlook.com , comment 1 to 8 out of 8 comments http://pres-outlook.com Thu, 20 Nov 2008 04:18:37 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://pres-outlook.com/opinion/commentary/4214.html#comment-3105 Bill - as a historian and as a Presbyterian, I liked your essay. I can only speak for myself but the Presbyterian Church (USA) is precisely where God called for me to serve. I'm not going anywhere. I stand with you. And I hope many more will too. In Christ, Tom Paine Minister of Word and Sacrament Serving in the USAF - Arthur Paine Wed, 07 Mar 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.com/opinion/commentary/4214.html#comment-3102 There is no virtue in denominational narcissism. It is not--nor has it ever been--about leaving the Church, but about reuniting with the whole Body of Christ. True unity is not--cannot be--an institutional expression. Roman Catholicism proved that 600 years ago. Unity is the work of the Holy Spirit. Does anyone out there really believe that God cares whether we are PCUSA, PCA, EPC, OPC, or RCA? Of course not. It is this very inability to separate the content from the packaging that puts us on the verge of denominational idolatry as well. The PCUSA is just an organization amid other organizations. When reform is needed, reform we must. A denomination that cannot endure reform is spoilt, rotten, or just gone bad. The PCUSA may not be that far gone, but we are certainly on that track. - Noel K. Anderson Wed, 07 Mar 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.com/opinion/commentary/4214.html#comment-3101 Mr. Newkirk asks for the scriptual basis for leaving for leaving any denomination. That is an interesting question in light of the fact that denominations are what they are becuse at one time they left another denomination. The PCUSA has historical roots in the Reformation of the early 16th century. At that time a group that became know as Protestants withdrew from the Roman Catholic Church. In the early 1930s a group of German christians which included Karl Barth, Martin Niemoller and Dietrich Bonhoffer formed the Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church. They had the courage to confront the German Evangelical Church(GEC) and declared 'that the GEC is threatened by the fact that the theological basis of the GEC has been continually and systematically thwarted and rendred ineffective by alien principles. . .' Were the reformers of the 16th century wrong when the opposed fallacies of the Roman Catholic Church? Were Christian in 1930 Germany wrong when they opposed the drift of the GEC toward Nazi ideology? If Mr Newkirk is true to his beliefs he will leave the PCUSA and join to the Roman Catholic Chruch so that he may reform that institution from within. I for one stand with Martin Luther who stood before the Diet of Worms and declared, 'It is impossible for me to recant unless I am proved wrong by the TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE. My conscience is bound to the Word of God. It is neither safe nor honest to act against one's conscience. Here I stand. God help me. I cannot do otherwise.' - Bob Gant Wed, 07 Mar 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.com/opinion/commentary/4214.html#comment-3100 I appreciate Bill Newkirk's commitment to the PCUSA. I too intend on staying in an effort to 'get it right.' However, there is a problem with his premise. He asks about a 'scriptural basis for leaving any denomination.' It seems to me there is a more fundamental question: Where is the scriptural basis for the establishment of any denomination? Scripture speaks of the church. It does not address denomination because denominations are the by-product of disunity. Bill's argument makes sense only if one presumes the PCUSA denomination is equivalent to "the church." It is not. Leaving the PCUSA denomination is not leaving "the church." I think we all need to come to terms with the fact that we live in a post-denomination age. - Doug Hucke Wed, 07 Mar 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.com/opinion/commentary/4214.html#comment-3099 There is Biblical warrent for staying and for leaving. Each person's call will vary according to the call of God. The Biblical Warrent for leaving: Gen. 12:1 Genesis 19 Psalm 1 Isaiah 48:20 I Corinthians 5:9-11 II Timothy 3:1-5 I have heard many other Biblical passages listed as well by those who would leave. From what I have read, those who plan to leave us feel they have a very solid scriptural basis for leaving. I believe that they do have a fairly solid basis for going. On the other hand, those who would stay and 'would never give up' also have a solid basis for staying. These are simply two different callings, both with a sound doctrinal basis. Why argue or fight about it? Live and let live. Greg Wiest Pastor, Glade Run UP Church - Greg Wiest Wed, 07 Mar 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.com/opinion/commentary/4214.html#comment-3098 'Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: 'I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.' Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord.' 2 Corinthians 6:14-17 Like you Bill, I have held a 'stay and fight' position for many years. After all, I actually believe what is written in the confessional standards of the church. Why should I be the one to leave? But I have come to see that while I never left the Presbyterian Church - the Presbyterian Church has been leaving me. When people pay lip service to the Confessions, counting them as 'what the church once believed' rather than the current standard -they have left the church. When people take ordination vows with their fingers crossed as PUP now permits - they have left the church. When the Presbyterian Church endorses positions contrary to the Reformed tradition as so many recent documents do - it has left the Church. As an analytical type, I've spent a long time trying to understand the feelings of my sisters and brothers who want to leave the church. For me, the sentences below finally put the issue in perspective. They are part of the original draft of the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson who describes an additional oppressor, 'our British brethren'. Jefferson wrote that like their king: 'they have been deaf to the voice of justice and consanguinity, and when occassions have been given them, by the regular course of their laws, of removing from their councils the disturbers of our harmony, they have by their free election re-established them in power.' 'These facts have given the last stab to agonizing affection, and manly spirit bids us to renounce for ever these unfeeling brethren. We must endeavor to forget our former love for them, and to hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends. We might have been a free and great people together; but a communication of grandeur and freedom it seems is below their dignity. Be it so, since they will have it. The road to glory and happiness is open to us too. We will climb it in a separate state, and acquiesce in the necessity which pronounces our everlasting Adieu!' The foundation for our current turmoil was laid long ago. Gordon Clark in book 'What Do Presbyterians Believe?' decribes the turning point as the Auburn Affirmation in 1924, saying: 'Regardless of what a minister believed or disbelieved on these matters, his good standing was not to be called into question and he was to be received with all confidence and fellowship. By 1936 the signers of the Auburn Affirmation showed that they had captured the church by reorganizing Princeton Seminary and placing one of the signers on its governing board, by electing one of their number moderator of the General Assembly and, what was decisive, by excommunicating those ministers who had insisted on maintaining the Westminster standards in practice. Thus, ministers who rejected the Scripture and all it contains were given authority, while men who believed the Bible and all it contains were ejected as disturbers of the peace.' On another page Dr. Clark writes: 'No one compels a young man to become a Presbyterian minister. It is a voluntary choice. Therefore honesty seems to require that he be loyal to the flag he has chosen; or rather that he choose a flag to which he can be conscientiously loyal. If he does not believe the Confession, why should he solemnly affirm that he does? Similarly, if an older minister changes his views and comes to disagree with his ordination vows, no one compels him to remain in the denomination. Rather honesty compells him to find a church with which he agrees. How can God be expected to bless perjury and hypocrisy in the pulpit?' Our current difficulties may well be the result of decades of perjury and hypocrisy from pulpits across the denomination. And it may be time now to pronounce 'our everlasting Adieu'. At the very least, I cannot fault those sisters and brothers who believe that such a time has finally come. May the God of grace guide and direct us, Rev. Michael Neubert Presbytery of Southeastern Illinois - Michael Neubert Wed, 07 Mar 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.com/opinion/commentary/4214.html#comment-3095 Finally - let me say that again - finally someone in the PC(USA) utilizing Scripture to support an argument. How refreshing - perhaps Mr. Newkirk's example will inspire others to do the same. Imagine how different our debates would be if we required that our arguments be founded in Scripture and not that other bible - The Book of Order. - Tony Palubicki Tue, 06 Mar 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.com/opinion/commentary/4214.html#comment-3096 I've read a lot of arguments on both sides, have been doing that for decades in the PCUSA. In spite of it all tension is greater, two sides are moving further apart and it has become a matter of conscience to many. I'm not advocating leaving the denomination but I know people and churches that have who are happy, meeting needs, involved in ministry and it seems God is at work there. I can say the same about churches that stay in the denomination happily and not so happily. Just give churches their property and if it is a mistake to leave, let them make that mistake. All that has to be done to reduce tension is let go of the rope. We give people all the rope they need in the PCUSA in views of Bible, in standards of ordination, in what they consider essential tenets, and so on. I really doubt it is a great violation of conscience to allow the local congregation to own it's property when we are liberal and open minded as we are. Nah, for some reason I have a feeling that is a fundamental to which we can't be open minded. So now I wait on further arguments on the connectional nature of the church... - Mike Gibson Tue, 06 Mar 2007 12:00:00 +0100