Comments for Some Thoughts on the New Wineskins' "Open Letter" at http://pres-outlook.com , comment 1 to 8 out of 8 comments http://pres-outlook.com Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:52:03 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://pres-outlook.com/opinion/commentary/4216.html#comment-3114 Mr. McCarty and Mr. Brown: I respectfully suggest you take a look at Mr. Hooker's letter again. There is much that you have assumed or read into it that just isn't there. - Scott Nesbitt Fri, 09 Mar 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.com/opinion/commentary/4216.html#comment-3112 As much as I agree with the comments of Paul Hooker above, it is hard to get around the confusion created by the last GA regarding 'scrupling'. If as Mr. Hooker suggests, echoed by Ed Koster, that 'the body that is considering ordaining or installing me will have to consider whether that declaration of conscience departs from some essential of Reformed faith and polity. But it may not proceed to ordain or install me if I declare that I will not abide by G-6.0106b.' Then the change in the AI was meaningless. If, on the other hand, it does provide for each governing body to determine whether G-6.0106b is essential and therefore require that candidates uphold its rule or that it is unessential and therefore candidates may declare or behave in a manneer that doesn't abide by the standard, then for better or worse it is a local option. I wish the opinions of Koster and Hooker were true, but given the rhetoric of the PUP commission, the clear implication was that whether or not G-6.0106b would be upheld was now no longer a denominational matter, but something to be determined on a case by case, congregation by congregation, presbytery by presbytery basis. Truth is, you cannot have it both ways. If Koster and Hooker are right the changing of the AI was meaningless, if the rhetoric of 'scrupling' is valid then we have in fact a local option. There can be no other way of looking at it. - Thomas Harvey Fri, 09 Mar 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.com/opinion/commentary/4216.html#comment-3111 Is it really possible that Mr. Hooker doesn't understand the orthodox complaint against the Trinity paper? He writes: 'What the report does suggest is that we might profit theolgically by recognizing the broad array of biblical metaphors for God in all three persons. There is nothing mandatory about this suggestion...' The paper bordered on the heretical - yes, I mean that - because it failed to differentiate sufficiently between a name and a metaphor. I am, for example, 'pastor' insofar as I am like other pastors, or like the archetypal pastor. But I am John Andrew Scott. My name has meaning, to be sure, and may conjure up all sorts of associations, but it has no essential referent outside myself. Likewise, the first Person of the Holy Trinity is not called 'Father' because of any similarity to human fathers. Rather, the traditional answer has been that human fathers are called fathers only insofar as they are like God. When we abandon the idea that words - including names - have any ontological significance, we open the door to a sea of confusion. In the case of the Trinity, we throw the gates of Chalcedon and Nicea wide open, and invite Sibellius and company (who taught that Father, Son and Spirit were manifestations of a divine monad, rather than distinct persons in the unity of the Godhead) back into the fold. Persons have names. Ideas have metaphorical descriptors. That was the problem with the Trinity paper. - John Scott Fri, 09 Mar 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.com/opinion/commentary/4216.html#comment-3110 In reading Mr. Hooker's essay and the responses, I find it striking that the division in the Presbyterian church is written as if it were not the norm. The ordination/acceptance of gays and lesbians seems to be the issue of our generation. But Presbyterians have been fighting over something in almost every generation (see Bradley Longfield's 'The Presbyterian Controversy' for a fascinating look at how we were fighting in the early 20th century and even before). The question is not whether we see ourselves as one church. The question, I think, is if we ever did. But I know this - when the Presbyterian Church did make a difference in our society are the times when we focused on sharing, spreading, and living God's Word instead of arguing amongst one another over our differences. Some will surely go in this latest conflict. But I hope we move beyond it and the PC(USA) does not let those on the ends of the right/left spectrum define our dialogue for the next fifty years. In Christ, Tom Paine - Arthur Paine Fri, 09 Mar 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.com/opinion/commentary/4216.html#comment-3109 Paul Hooker's comment #4 about the PUP report is exactly correct. The PUP report does NOT allow presbyteries/sessions to ignore our denominational ordination standards. It does NOT allow for ordination of officers actively involved in extramarital affairs or any sexual relationships outside of marriage. People can disagree with G-6.06016b all they want, but governing bodies still do not have permission to ordain people who refuse to abide by it. The passage of PUP does not give governing bodies the right to ignore disobedience to the constitution. Clark Cowden Evangelist Presbyter/Stated Clerk Presytery of San Joaquin Visalia, CA - Clark Cowden Fri, 09 Mar 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.com/opinion/commentary/4216.html#comment-3094 Where to begin? Mr. Hooker is wrong in so many different ways. He says "There are not 'opposing churches' in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). To suggest otherwise is intentionally to exacerbate the division among us by creating the impression that there is a 'right' church and a 'wrong' church within the denomination, and that withdrawing only recognizes de jure separate churches that already exist de facto." Really? No division, either de facto or de jure? The NWAC Report simply and intentionally "exacerbate[s] the division among us?" A nice choice of words, that. Note that he did not say that NWAC created division, nor did he accuse us of fomenting division. He certainly did not deny the division exists. No, he just pronounces that it is NWAC which is "exacerbate[ing] the division among us." Look at the definition of "exacerbate: to increase the severity, violence, or bitterness of; to aggravate." Thus, by definition, he admits that there is a division, that there are opposing churches within the PC(USA), and the division is widening. Of course, in his world, it is the evangelicals who make up the NWAC that are the dividers. If only we would learn to open our Bibles and "listen for (not 'to') the word of God," all would be just fine. It is probably in there somewhere, if we just look and listen hard enough. But to declare that we believe Scripture, all Scripture, to be the word of God, that's divisive and we are increasing the severity of the division by so asserting. If only those pesky evangelicals in the NWAC would agree that Christ's miracles are just metaphors, as Rick Ufford-Chase preached in the last year or so, everything would be hunky-dory. The "miracle" of the loaves and fishes was, according to Mr. Ufford-Chase, just the fore-runner of that Presbyterian staple, the pot luck supper. By insisting that Christ actually performed a miracle, those evangelicals in the NWAC are increasing the violence of the division It is only those pesky evangelicals in the NWAC who are aggravating the division? Really? Outlook recently reported that the national board of That All May Freely Serve has named Lisa Larges to the position of Minister-Coordinator. "Lisa is the right person for us at this time," said Mary Rees, co-moderator of the TAMFS board, "As we work toward the removal of G-6.0106B at the 218th General Assembly in 2008, continue our work to nurture the leadership of youth and seminarians, provide spiritual care for Presbyterians who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, and strengthen our witness for creating a church that welcomes ALL persons, Lisa's gifts, skills, and connection with our regions and the broader church will be invaluable in helping us reach these goals." There it is. "As we work toward the removal of G-6.0106B at the 218th General Assembly in 2008 . . .." For a decade now, we have suffered repeated attempts to amend the Book of Order (or to adopt a de facto amendment in the form of an AI) to replace a Scriptural ordination standard with one of the world. And it is not going to stop. But it is those pesky New Wineskinners who are exacerbating the situation. He goes on to say "We may not agree, even about vital matters, but that is not equivalent to making the claim that we are two churches living in the same denominational house." Really? Disagreement about "vital matters" (dare I say "essential tenets"?) is not enough to warrant realignment? What more will it take for him to admit that we are two churches living in the same denominational house? He next says "Rather, there is one church, and all of us, including the elders and members of each particular congregation, have a say in what that church does. As long as any session sends commissioners to presbytery or expects the attention of presbytery to matters of concern, it affirms that truth, whether it agrees with it or not." Wow, Louisville has a convert. Mr. Hooker agrees with the unifying, pastoral Louisville Papers that the PC(USA) is the true church. The rest of those heathens, the Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, had better get right with God and exchange their bishops for presbyteries. Wait. Never mind. According to the non-divisive Louisville Papers, it is we who must recognize that the presbyteries are actually our "bishops." And as for those Congregationalists, Baptists and independents, and every other denomination using the word "Presbyterian" in their name, it is time to bow and kiss Louisville's ring. Having settled the question of which side of the divide is righteous and which is divisive, he raise a couple of particular complaints. Citing to his source, he says ' 'PUP allows presbyteries/sessions to ignore our denominational ordination standards on a case-by-case basis.... This new wording allows for the ordination or continued ordination of pastors, elders, and deacons actively involved in extramarital affairs and for singles engaged in sexual relationships outside of a marital covenant' (paragraphs 5-6): This is simply untrue. In point of fact, no one can ignore the denominational standards for ordination, least of all sessions and presbyteries. The much-ballyhooed provision for 'scrupling' permits one to declare disagreements of conscience with one or more aspects of Reformed faith and polity, but it does not permit an ordaining body to ignore declarations of refusal to abide by that polity." So what about the presbytery that recently took under care a self-avowed, unrepentant homosexual who seeks ultimately to be ordained a Minister of the Word and Sacrament? He was one of the authors of the PUP Report and was quoted as saying that PUP made it possible for him to seek ordination. No, Mr. Hooker, your protestations ring hollow. That old dog won't hunt. Finally, Mr. Hooker establishes himself as one who is reformed, always reforming. Unfortunately, what he wants to reform--more accurately, recreate--is history. He says, "In point of fact, the principle of conscientious objection to aspects of the Constitution goes back to the Adopting Act of 1729. The Act prevented the dissolution of the first Synod by permitting ministers to declare "scruples" regarding one or another provision of the Westminster Confession or Catechisms, provided that the scruple be "only about articles not essential and necessary in doctrine, worship, or government." But the Adopting Act and its allowance of scruples was very limited. It allowed a declaration of a scruple only with respect to Chapters 20 and 23 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, which permitted civil magistrates to be arbiters in theological disputes. In 1736, the highest governing body of the nascent American presbyterian church reaffirmed that scruples were permitted only for chapters 20 and 23. I doubt that any of the signatories of the Adopting Act ever envisioned that a scruple would be permitted to allow ordination of one of TAMFS's constituents. The bottom line is this: apologists for an increasingly authoritative, bureaucratic, worldly, politically correct denomination are free to act as they see fit. As the Strategy Report makes clear, one faithful option is to stay in the PC(USA). Those who stay will be in our thoughts and prayers. They may stay and tolerate the PC(USA)'s apostasy, they may stay and pray for a miracle (the kind that the leadership denies ever happened) that reforms and renews the PC(USA), or they may simply retreat within the walls of their respective churches until the long arm of Louisville, empowered by an amended Book of Order, reaches in takes over. We all have free will which we are expected to exercise as we are led. All that NWAC asks is the same courtesy, for leaving an apostate PC(USA) is also a faithful option. As Moses said to Pharoah on the Nile, so should those who are called to do so say to Pharoah on the Ohio: "Let my people go." The views expressed herein are solely those of the author. They do not, nor are they intended to, necessarily express the views of either the New Wineskins Association of Churches nor of the Session or Congregation of Forks of the Brandywine Presbyterian Church. Mac Michael R. McCarty Elder-member, NWAC Strategy Team Elder, Forks of the Brandywine Presbyterian Church Glenmoore, PA - Michael Mccarty Tue, 06 Mar 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.com/opinion/commentary/4216.html#comment-3089 It looks like the eye is still telling the hand, 'I have no need of you.' In 2000 years, neither Paul nor we have been able to convince these Body parts otherwise. Why are we surprised when so many people declare to Christianity, 'I have no need of you'? After all, they certainly know us by our actions. - David Robbins Mon, 05 Mar 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.com/opinion/commentary/4216.html#comment-3088 Boy am I glad that I read this article! After going to the New Wineskins Convocation and feeiling the impact of the Holy Spirit's movement for reform and after years of thinking that our denomination might be in real trouble, I'm glad to find out that the New Wineskins were just making it all up out of thin air! I guesss there's no problem after all. It was all just a bad dream. I guess those 50,000 members leaving were just a rumor started by the Layman or something. Sleeping easier tonight, Toby Brown - Toby Brown Mon, 05 Mar 2007 12:00:00 +0100