Reader Response :
Comment:
Let's get this right. 30 million dollars was raised. Of that, 20 million is under the control of presbyteries or churches. I believe some research has shown that his money was not "new" money but money already held by presbyteries and churches who simply sent it into this fund for investment purpose while they remain in control of the funds. So now we have this fund raising 10 million dollars. The administrative costs were over 4 million dollars so there was about 6 million new dollars raised. I believe the incredible failure of this campaign points out one thing, the very high level of distrust in our denomination. I think trying to make it sound like anything other than what it is will not allow us to honestly face the truth and deal with it.
Response from Linda Valentine, Executive Director of the General Assembly Council:
ear Editor,
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Mr. Ferguson’s letter.
Just over $30 million in pledges were raised as part of the Mission Initiative: Joining Hearts and Hands campaign. There are many lessons to be learned from this campaign, including a growing tendency of many Presbyterians to fund mission at the most local level. We are proud that many presbyteries and congregations chose to use the Mission Initiative campaign as a means of securing pledges from their members for church growth and international mission personnel, and as a sign of their connectedness to the wider church.
Just a brief note about administrative expenses: The goal of the Mission Initiative: Joining Hearts and Hands wasn’t just about increasing the church’s financial resources, but rather about renewing the church for mission and learning new methods of funds development within congregations, presbyteries, and the General Assembly. For these reasons, the GAC invested $2.3 million into the campaign. As a result, only $2 million of the $30 million raised will go toward the administrative expenses of the campaign. While much of the funds raised will be used by presbyteries and congregations, each of those bodies has committed not only to raise the funds as part of the campaign, but also to use them within the purposes of the campaign. With a portion of the roughly $8 million to be administered by the GAC, we are pleased to have been able to send 34 new mission co-workers into Christ’s service around the world.
For a full discussion of the campaign challenges, campaign successes, and lessons learned, please read the full report: http://www.pcusa.org/gac/business/sept08/P103.pdf.
Blessings,
Linda Bryant Valentine
Reader Response :
Jack,
What about the toxic hatred that has been poured incessantly on George W Bush for the past eight years? Has that been the “high road”? How many times has Bush been vilified as “stupid”? Could Obama’s thin skin endure 1% of what Bush has endured with grace? Bush is no more stupid than Obama has shown himself to be with his gaffes.
Bush’s and McCain’s weakness is that they have not responded with aggressiveness equal to that of their opponents. McCain has failed to blame Democrats Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and others who vocally opposed attempts to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003 and 2005, because he wants to avoid “partisanship”. If he refuses to start “naming names,” he concedes the race to those who blame him and his party for this mess.
The truth will come out, whether we name and blame, or not. The problem is that if we keep silent, we end up finding out the truth the hard way.
Tom Hobson
Belleville, IL
Reader Response :
Dear Jack
I have endeavored to digest all of the material your folks have so ably prepared from the Polity Conference and the accompanying GAC meting at Snowbird. I am however left with the persistent feeling that we have engaged in another lovely series of feel good conversations which in all probability have assuaged the collective consciences of those who participated but in reality
are destined to go no where in any immediate remedial response to this sadly sagging denomination.
Talking to please ourselves and in actuality prolonging the inevitable does nothing to speak to the heartfelt desires of a constituency that longs for real, concrete, constructive change which will bring the assets and support this denomination could offer directly and meaningfully to the doorstep of hundreds of congregations that have been longing for such a sign from a stagnate and inflated hierarchy. In that process, aggressive, meaningful, immediate action could and would send a positive message of hope, perhaps even belief, to a questioning constituency that repeatedly asks the questions “ what does Presbytery, Synod and better yet Louisville really do for us “ in turn, “ why should we support them “
As a lifelong Presbyterian, serving the church actively in a variety of areas for over fifty years I had never encountered those kinds of questions until the last ten years of that service but they are questions that are coming with far greater frequency and with increasing sincerity or often vehemence. It is disappointing and hurtful to listen to such concern and it is far more trying to endeavor to offer positive response in an endeavor to allay such concern.
To convert the nice sounding Snowbird verbiage into affirmative and positive action that will produce the results that were expressed at those meetings will take eons and that, as a
denomination, we cannot afford.
We boldly talk about “ bottom up, grass roots and bubbling up “ but do we really comprehend what we are saying and what kind of positive implementation is necessary to bring such a response into reality and in turn do we possess a willingness to sincerely let it happen ?
We have become so top down, control oriented, that to break that mold through such noble sounding, conceptual dialogue, any actual implementation will be stifled at the door step of possible reality because we can’t let go nor do we possess the intuitive desire to effectively implement such a process in a timely manner.
Change is inevitable and the need for it has been staring us in the face for some time, it has been taking place all around us, yet until we are truly willing to accept and implement those necessary elements of change in an expedient plan of action that can truly assist in a major course correction for our denominational ship our decline will continue. Talking takes time and time is our worst enemy. Frankly instead of talking everything to death we might be better advised to develop an effective process for listening and really hearing what the pew sitting Presbyterians are saying. Asking and then implementing action plans for delivering effective answers.
enominationally we are drowning in sea of metaphor, feel good “ baloney “. We find ourselves caught on a “ metaphorical merry go round “ and we can’t seem to grasp the brass ring, the ring
that might just strike the target of positive change.
Buzz words are not going to cut it and as Snow Bird demonstrated we’ve got plenty of them. Perhaps they make some folks feel good and they go off wrapped in a euphoric aura, feeling as though they have addressed the “ demons “ that plague us and struck a blow for change, yet in reality they have accomplished nothing but deferring critical corrective action by consigning it to
the conversational log jam.
In this vein I reflect on the arduous, yet positive,work that the PUP task force engaged in and you participated in, only to have it thrown to the wind by the Assembly and force the denomination to contemplate further discord and unrest after the Task Force report had effectively provided an acceptable answer to a vexing problem which the general constituency seemed essentially
satisfied with.
When are we going to stop kidding ourselves and start hearing what the people that make the wheels go round are really saying and want instead of listening to a lot of supernumeraries
hypothecate on their self preserving, ill informed perceptions? Lets develop immediate remedial prescriptions aimed at curing our malaise not merely applying band-aids to defer corrective response.
My Best to you and blessings
Jim Babcock
Reader Response :
We are so blessed to have you as part of the team here in Los Ranchos. I thank God that you have answered "YES" to God's call to pastoral ministry.
Response By :
Steve Yamaguchi -
Long Beach , CA - October 3, 2008
Reader Response :
Is this really what we need to be spending time and money doing? With so many excellent worship music resources available in the wide world, and with more and more congregations doing less and less with book-based music, why do we need to reinvent this wheel (again)? Are we Presbyterians so unique that we need a special songbook just for us?
Reader Response :
I deeply appreciated what Jack Van Ens had to say about Solzhenitsyn, particularly in parallel with the life and witness of Jeremiah. How we need the reminder in these days that despair will not have the last word for those who put their hope in God.
And this is where Mr. Van Ens lost me when he injected Sen. Obama into the narrative. While it may be the case that Obama sounds in many hearts the trumpet call of a new time, it is decidedly not a time to be confused with the new age of the Kingdom (about which both Jeremiah and Solzhenitsyn were speaking). When a politician at the height of his rhetorical trumpeting can say, "We are the ones we've been waiting for!", the audacity of hope seems to melt into mere audacity, and the remnants of hope scurry for some stable foundation upon which to survive present maelstroms of life.
It is not enough to have hope; hoping in hope is as empty as hoping in human nature to rescue us from this fallen world we have shaped and sustained all too willingly. I wonder how Mr. Solzhenitsyn would view Mr. Obama's rhetoric and policies (along with those of Mr. McCain). I rather think on the basis of his own words quoted by Mr. Van Ens -- Our diabolical cockiness has become "the master of this world … who bears no evil within himself. So all the defects of life are attributed to wrong social systems" -- that he would lump most all our present politicians into the camp of those who perpetuate a view of life that has sold out God for the fool's gold of human achievement. Audacity produced by such groundless hope degenerates into impudence, the very spirit of our age against which Solzhenitsyn hurled his jeremiads.
Response By :
Mateen Elass -
Edmond , OK - September 24, 2008
Reader Response :
Thank you for coverage of this important event in Bern. The event makes me feel that we CAN make a difference. The point the theologians at the meeting made cannot be stressed enough: that we need to differentiate between the Israel of the Bible and Israel, the country. If we do not make this distinction, then we put one nation on earth above the law - or at the very least, we say that they are answerable to a different law from the rest of the world's nations.
Response By :
Noushin Framke -
Short Hills , NJ - September 17, 2008
Reader Response :
Thanks for the thoughtful and useful commentary. No doubt those on the "non-progressive" side will also find a few things to quibble about, but I feel a need to comment on just one item. Regarding "compromising" on "sexual morality," especially as it relates to the two-thirds world struggling with sexually transmitted diseases: Perhaps I have missed something, but as in the USA most of what I hear in complaint from conservatives in other places is all about the homosexuality, while the crisis of AIDS in those places is primarily a heterosexual issue (made worse by economic conditions that tend to separate families). "Unsafe sex" could in fact easily be identified as "having sex with men." Gay men are doubly at risk, of course. But if one somehow believes that fact reflect God's disapproval, then would one not also be forced to conclude that lesbians have God's special blessing?
Anyone who doubts that those who support openness to gay and lesbian Christians have a pro-marriage and pro-morality agenda should read David Myers' and Letha Scanzoni's excellent book "What God Has Joined Together?: A Christian Case for Gay Marriage."
Response By :
David Carothers -
Harrisonburg , VA - August 19, 2008
Reader Response :
Jack has given us a good trilogy, which reads best when all three pieces are read together in context. I would add one item to his words to his liberal-progressive friends, and that is the unfortunate phenomenon of "left-wing bigotry." We all know what a "right-wing bigot" is. Some on the left may be surprised to learn that they practice the same sort of bigotry toward those on the right. That's what scares some of us. When such persons are given enough power, "local option" will soon become mandated gay ordination, in the same way that local option on women's ordination eventually became mandated. The center of the church should take this potential scenario seriously.
Response By :
Tom Hobson -
Belleville , Illinois - August 18, 2008
Reader Response :
I, too, found this as the word I needed just at the time I need it -- particularly, the reminder, that I too, like the church, tend to be "broken, in error, and unfaithful."
Reader Response :
Jerry,
While I would agree with some of your thoughts on the emphasis placed on "feeling" over "thinking" at times, there is also something to be said for clearing a space in our life together for the Holy Spirit to work. To paraphrase the words of H. Richard Niebuhr, found in his essay "The Grace of Doing Nothing", sometimes our "doing nothing" can be quite productive.
Without simply repeating comments I've already written, I've made some comments in reponse to the Outlook Article "Where are we now?", written by David R. Carlson Monday, 04 August 2008. They would be apropos to some of your thoughts, as well.
In short, my experience of GA was quite different from yours. If you have the opportunity, I would enjoy reading your thoughts in response to my previous post. In sum, I would suggest many of our efforts were, not to "live faithfully without the Faith", they were efforts to regain an authenticity to our faith that was lost long ago when political/cultural agendas, from all sides, seized the day.
Reader Response :
These are words of grace in an otherwise either/or discussion that open the possibility of expressing faithfulness as one who disagrees but is committed to ministry in the PCUSA. I find this reflection deeply meaningful and in harmony with my own convictions. I look forward to sharing these thoughts with others in the congregation entrusted to my care. Thank you, Robert.
Response By :
Peter Smith -
Blackstone , VA - August 12, 2008
Reader Response :
My friend and brother Jack,
For much of the last 30 years many of us have been offering our views on scripture, and our understandings on God, Jesus, salvation, and the work of the Spirit, and over and over again found ourselves either dismissed or stonewalled by a large proportion of the church. My belief has grown over these years that the real problem in our longterm failure to resolve the ordination issue lies not so much among the strong advocates of the right or left, but among those in the center who so badly want us to find something else to talk about. Of course the progressive / liberals will continue to offer our witness, but will we be given the courtesy of really being listened to? My hope is that next week you'll strongly urge the centrists to vigorously engage with the process and move this discussion to a new place over the next year. In my mind that is best hope for all of us, right, left, and middle.
Response By :
Kenneth Cuthbertson -
August 11, 2008
Reader Response :
Or, perhaps, the winds of change are rising. Perhaps, there is a new voice, neither right, nor left, nor centrist, saying to those who have a vested interest in keeping the conflict alive, because of the symbiotic relationships they have with their opponents (as long as there is an "enemy", it is easier to raise funds for "the cause"), perhaps there is a new voice saying it's time for the conversation to change, it's time our baptismal covenants, rather than our political affiliations, to claim our lives. There is no more "gay" or "straight", right or left, liberal or conservative, pro-life or pro-choice, only sisters and brothers who are gay and straight, et al, and who have much to learn from one another about loving one another - in spite of and because of who they are.
Perhaps, particularly with regard to G-6.0106b and the respective authoritative interpretations, there was an attempt to clean the slate, to go back to a time before there was a paragraph targeting homosexuals, under the auspices of "purity." Perhaps, there was an attempt to start the conversation, anew.
If such a voice is rising, perhaps we will stop our posturing and placating and extorting - and listen. Perhaps, we'll try harder to speak - and hear - the truth in love. Perhaps, we will remember, we are sisters and brothers in Christ, first, and our giving to God, through the Presbyterian Church (USA), is for God's glory and not for the furthering of our partisan agendas. Perhaps, rather than caucusing against one another across the aisle, we will sit with one another at Christ's table.
The Holy Spirit was alive and well at this GA. Though there were countless signs of God's presence, I'll share one that won't make the news. When GA was all said and done, a gentleman, a man of faith, who voted opposite me on most, if not all, of the "important" issues, came to me and offered an embrace. Why? Because that's what Jesus would do.
If anything was different about GA, maybe it was a little less partisan and a little more Christ-like. If that is the case, then, we can thank many folks, on both sides of the aisle, and give the glory to God.
Reader Response :
Eight democratic presidential candidates participated in a debate. Iowa during which they discussed health care and other issues. I want to have universal health care. I have stood up against the special interests. It was unions that organized workers, that gave them better wages and working conditions and benefits like health care and pensions. Thank you.
=======================================
quella
http://www.treatmentcenters.org/new-jersey
Response By :
quella quella -
phoneix , arizona - August 7, 2008
Reader Response :
As a commissioner to this GA, I would simply ask, "How have we ammended the constitution?" Whether G-6.0106b remains a part of the constitution will be decided by the presbyteries. (Though the argument could be made that we have reinterpreted G-6.0108 a & b, the real issue is G-6.0106b)
At most, we have opened the way for scrupling belief and behavior. While this will certainly make our life together more difficult at times, it seems preferable to a strict subscriptionism, for such scrupling will not occur outside of the guidance of our presbyteries.
I, for one, would encourage everyone, regardless of our beliefs on homosexuality, to scruple G-6.0106b, as a matter of conscience, for the manner in which it has been selectively applied primarily to the "sin" of homosexuality. Moreover, as we seek the mind of Christ on this matter which divides the church, I would encourage all of us to search our hearts.
Who among us is not convicted, at some place in our lives, by G-6.0106b? Is there anyone who has truly repented (e.g. changed our lives) of every "self-acknowledge practice which the confessions call sin"? If there is, I would like to know how they avoid the sin of pride.
Reader Response :
I am grateful to Chuck Hammond for his insight into the parallelism between the previous Fundamentalist controversy and the present debate over ordination standards. The comparison is right on target!This is a wise word of counsel from one of the ablest leaders of the PCUSA
Response By :
Doug Harper -
Houston , TX - August 7, 2008
Reader Response :
J. Bruce Coleman has said eloquently what I, too, am beginning to hear more of -- the breeze of hope is blowing and energizing those who are working so hard to open our church and its positions of leadership to all God's people who simply trust in God's goodness and purposes as Jesus has revealed them by his life and teachings, death, and resurrection.
Reader Response :
Mark is such a dear and authentic soul. He is the real deal. I love this guy.
I'm glad that Cascades Presbytery held this event, and I'm glad the Outlook reported it. I have been personally and deeply touched by Mark's ministry, odd as it and he are.
Response By :
Steve Yamaguchi -
Long Beach , CA - August 4, 2008
Reader Response :
I don't know Cliff Kirkpatrick personally, but I have heard from mutual friends that he is an incredibly nice, pastoral fellow. I believe them. However, I also believe that his role as Stated Clerk has been a disaster for our denomination. This latest interview confirms in my mind that Cliff sadly has been a self-induced blind guide for the blind. I say this for two reasons deduced from his replies in the ENI interview.
First, he parses his words very carefully regarding the 2007 denominational statistics to obfuscate the facts, yet he still misinterprets the data (if I'm reading things correctly). The article states that he believes "...the reasons for the latest losses are complex and include a combination of aging membership and the departure of some members to a “secular world.” Still, the retiring church official believes data indicate the PC(USA) is now receiving more members from other U.S. denominations than it loses to others." Indeed, the statistics do include a combination of aging membership (a.k.a "losses through death") and departure of some folks to a secular world (an indictment of our denomination in itself that we are unable to keep people focused on the gospel). But the numbers actually indicate that we lost fewer members to death in 2007 than in any year since 2004, and fewer members to the category of "other" than in recent years (this would be the category including losses to a "secular world", though it's impossible to know how many chose that direction as opposed to membership in a church to which we do not send certificates of transfer).
The increased net losses are due primarily to the fact that we are attracting fewer new members to the PCUSA. Compared to every year since 2004 (the farthest back that the chart I looked at went), we gained fewer members by certificate of transfer in 2007 than any of the previous three years, only 30,144 compared to 40,416 in 2004. We also gained by "other" means fewer in 2007 than in any of the previous three years, only 11,539 compared to 21,385 in 2004.
As to Cliff's belief that we are gaining more members from other denominations than we are losing to them (a strange way of looking at the mission of evangelism), the statistics show otherwise. Our 2007 gains by certificate of transfer (30,144) and other (11,539) total 41,683. Our 2007 losses in the same categories are (30,329) and (102,714) for a total of 133,043. Any way you look at it, the numbers cannot be construed as Cliff would like to believe. Self-induced blindness is all I can come up with for explanation.
The second evidence for blindness, in my opinion, is much more telling and troubling. According to this article, Cliff does not believe that many people are leaving the PCUSA over the drift now turned avalanche toward homosexual ordination. He concedes, however, that some have left over this issue, and deeply regrets this. However, he apparently believes this transition from the biblical witness to traditional sexual morality to an anti-biblical, worldly-molded polymathic sexuality is prophetic, and that such transitions are always costly. Hence, losing the members we are losing is worth the price to be prophetic.
Ironically, I agree with Cliff that our church is acting prophetically, albeit unwittingly. The prophecies being fulfilled are not that we are speaking for God to the world on behalf of justice and compassion for homosexual equality, but that we are demonstrating by our shrinkage and increasing irrelevance to the Kingdom of God that when God's people loose themselves from obedience to the whole counsel of God as revealed through Jesus Christ in the Bible under the guidance of the Spirit, we experience the removal of God's blessing. Being prophetic in this way is sadly deplorable. Perhaps Cliff's version of prophecy is right and mine is wrong. But if I'm wrong, I will pay the price for my own errors. If Cliff is wrong in how he has steered the PCUSA for twelve years, this denomination will pay the price for decades, or until its divinely-determined demise.
Blindness in our denominational leadership is unacceptable. I am praying that such an affliction will not continue under the watch of Gradye Parsons.
Response By :
Mateen Elass -
Edmond , OK - August 4, 2008
Reader Response :
The issue is not so much to allow gay and lesbian ordination, it has been a practice and a reality in the church for quite some time in certain circles. That will not change.
The real issue is if the allowing the full church wide practice of gay/lesbian ordination means that church bodies and various levels of the church, Session, Presbytery will further grant to those organizations the abilty 'not' to ordain if it be their choice and conscious based upon their understanding of Scripture.
The past concerning the process of female ordination in the 1960s and 70s do not bode well for those who may object to the practice.
There is a large difference between the words, "may" "should" and "must". If we are wise we will avoid the pain and mistakes of the past, if not, we fully deserve our fates.
Reader Response :
I liked your analysis. The one point I wish you had made is that the congress must depend upon each other in future debates and votes, like farmers depending upon a neighbor to help them get their harvest in even though they dislike the neighbor.
We act like "the issue" is the key to our own salvation! That's just plain stupid. We can't see the forest for the trees. God is the judge not the GA, Presbytery or congregation. We have lost all sight of the reason the church exists to share the Gospel and the great love of God... We fight because we have forgotten how to love. This is the first Assembly I have missed since 1973... and I was building a school for Mexican children in Valle Hermosa, Mexico... a much better use of my time and witness.
Bruce Berry
Interim Pastor
Marshall, MO
Reader Response :
I was ordained in 1983, the fateful year of "reunion." As far as I can tell, in the past 25 years there has been no union. The presbytery (Twin Cities Area) in which I've served for 23 of those 25 years is the current epicenter of debate about GLBT ordination. After 23 years of debate, I could take either side of this argument and defend it. But I happen to be on the politically incorrect side -- I can't see my way clear to call homosexuality blessed.
I didn't go into ministry to argue with passion over this one issue for 23 years! In his editorial, Haberer makes it sound like argument and debating, or even conversation on this issue is what we're supposed to be about.What a waste of the Holy Spirit and Kingdom resources! I've begun to despair of ever serving a denomination where "the main thing is the main thing" -- letting Christ live through us as we seek to live out the Kingdom of God for the sake of those outside the Church.
Response By :
Judie Ritchie -
Richfield , MN - July 21, 2008
Reader Response :
OK. You're crazy.
More seriously - in Congress, EVERYTHING done is measured for political impact. The position taken by those arguing with passion may or may not reflect their own beliefs about the issue, and may or may not reflect the will of their constituents back home. They may be arguing for side X on issue A because somebody else will then argue for side Y on issue B. Imagine such a trade in the PC(USA) - I'll vote for/against homosexuality as long as you vote on the same side as me on our response to the Middle East.
I think a better model is hockey fights. Two folks pour everything that they have in fights out on the ice. These same players will often get a beer together after the game and laugh about the debates.
When I was a YAD to the Synod of the Northeast in the mid-80's, the hockey fight mindset prevailed. People actually ate together, talked together and laughed together about their positions on issues and the debate itself.
Times have changed. I have run into a small number of General Assembly participants who were still smarting from their wounds after the meeting. I know that the collective PC(USA) blogs are still ringing like a bell with either celebration or outcry after this year's decision.
I hope that everyone will take your words to heart and try to reach out to someone "on the other side". The Spirit needs people to work - and there generally aren't any people in the No-Man's Land between the battle lines.
Mark Smith
Hamilton, NJ
Member, Presbyterian Church of Lawrenceville (NJ)
Reader Response :
I'm having difficulty with the parsing of words in this letter; specifically the change is to replaceversus the statement the assembly has not removedthe standard of fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness.
It would appear by codifying 'local option' were this amendment to be approved by a majority of the Presbyteries, we've now opened the door to "disUNITY". Each Presbytery, Session, PNC (and appropriate COM) will now be responsible "for discerning a candidate's fitness for ordination. This could get bogged down as a minimum and rather intense should a previously ordained Minister of the W&S from 'liberal' Presbytery A be refused ordination/installation in 'evangelical' Presbytery B. Did the GA really consider the potential divisiveness of their actions? Have they studied Romans 12 recently? Behavior is relevant according to Paul's Epistle.
Given we lost a church per month and 5000 members per month for 2007, the PC(USA) is spiraling toward irrelevance. That is most sad.
Response By :
Dana GILMOUR -
White Stone , va - July 21, 2008
Reader Response :
I am having trouble reading the comments on the website thank goodness for the emails, well kinda.
someone wrote in a reply:
"We have driven the stake into the ground so many times, we have drawn lines in the sand, and while feeling some personal victory in hurling charges at one another, questioning one another’s faith, and going through every statement with a fine-toothed comb hoping to find some error, some misstatement, something we can question dogmatically, we further crucify Jesus on the cross of our own pride and stubbornness."
It's funny how all these learned Elders forgot Jesus only asked us to go into the world and make disciples, baptising them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He gave us a clear picture of who will be accepted on judgement day: the ones who gave water, visited sick and imprisioned, clothed the naked and .... It's not about how we get along with members of our own faith but how we get along with members in our Christian faith. Mahatma Ghandi was quoted ( paraphrase(?), it's late and we don't have all the new upgrades for spell check yet) "I'd be a Christian if it weren't for the Christians." Seems we've been discussing the ability of people to read and study Scripture and find acceptance of who they sleep with in order to qualify to be Ministers of the Word and Sacrament we totally forgot about the one in need - physically and of God. If we'd quit looking at ourselves and focus on finding God's call for our lives, most everyone would be happy and we could have the abundant life God promised in spite of what we didn't get.
How about if the practicing homosexual wants to really make a difference as a pastor (good word to research etiologically too!), lead worship in a prison, a nursing home, a group home for developmentally disabled, make friends with homeless, visitors to the food pantry, clothes closet, elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, heck VBS and church camp. Bring them God's word, not yours, how he saved your life from sin, your soul from death with the gift of his Son on the cross at Calvary and his resurrection. Heck, how many people have you invited to church, for God's sake, that came and joined and their life was changed? What was it Martin Luther King, Jr. said (again paraphrased), "If you're going to be a street sweeper, be the best street sweeper you can." "Bloom where you are planted" is other's mantra to me.
Look for solutions to your problem you have with the established system. The other comment, same somebody, about e-mails: "At this point in time, we have substituted pronouncements for conversation. Email doesn’t help; in cyberspace, we can safely hide behind our self-erected monuments of rectitude, believing the other to be enemy."
Realize that the Presbyterian system is man's interpretation of what ecclesia looks like when only the outline is given in the Bible - something akin to the Book of Order: a member is one who participates in the work and worship of the local church; or even the Biblical reference to the marriage feast in Cana. After all, your Elder oaths included serve with imagination! Heck all I wanted to do was use gardening on the campus of our church as a segue to introduce people to the Gospel. I couldn't do it my way in the large scale we could have so I did what I could when I could. Go figure Elders would reject using God's nature to tell History.
If anyone contiues to debate the ability of practicing homosexuals to be ordained, please think first: do they need the permission for this sexual relationship (that's all it really is, I can't imagine friendship would cause such a stir) or is the guilt of their silence that great? I know the guilt in silence of my sinful, heterosexual exploits nearly killed me.
Thank God for his grace and mercy to give me ears to hear and eyes to see the error of my ways through people who loved me enough to tell me the truth and graced with patience to see me through to the other side. To Him only belongs the Glory and Praise!!
Reader Response :
Thank you, Tom Eggebeen, for stating again where we should not bother to spin our wheels. I really have less than no interest in continuing to engage a dogpile picking at my honest expression of faith, which at worst is an attempt to disclaim any authority to pick at others' expressions. If any of you want to engage me in substance, please come to my Yahoo group (link below) and take on my actual interpretations.
I must, however, take one last stand to clarify what I've said and not said: Walter Taylor charges me with denying what I affirmed at my ordination. I have said explicitly that I do indeed "receive and accept the Scriptures ... as God's Word to [me]," but there's no way every English word (in which version?) can be God's words every day. It takes work to hear the Word, sometimes more than other times and from other passages. Women know this particularly well because we have to search behind the interpretive layers to find, for instance, that all the nouns of the creation of humanity from dust are grammatically feminine. No, it's not a big deal theologically, but it's at least as big as the grammatically masculine words for God. And I invite you to tell any woman you know about it and ask her if it matters. Join the struggle, Walter. Wrestle with me and the cloud of witnesses with this amazing heritage we have. Wrestling, after all, is the whole name of the game (Israel).
bks
Response By :
Barbara Kellam-Scott -
July 11, 2008
Reader Response :
Al
Yes. And what distresses me is that no one will say the word. When the issue was raised in Birmingham, the response was, time and time again, "The ordination standards will not change." This was the official response from the PUP TF and the ACC. There was a news report that Sylvia Dooling raised that argument in the Church Orders Committee in San Jose, and I am told the response was that this is not about "local option." I believe the strategies used to persuade have not been honest. I have followed the debate at two GA's now, and I have never heard an advocate for the AI or anyone in an official capacity ever say that it would allow local option.
My position on the ordination of non-celibate gays and lesbians is clear and public. But I believe it is wrong to bypass the presbyteries to accomplish it, for the reasons you state. It damages the very fabric of our polity.
Reader Response :
>If the San Jose AI is found to take precedence over the Birmingham AI, then it would appear a presbytery could allow any departure from our confessional standards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ed, I think that is EXACTLY what many who were pushing both the PUP report and the Knox overture were trying to do. Knowing they could never win an up or down vote on homosexual ordination, the move was to make ALL standards optional.
When Mark Achtemeier visited our PBY before the PUP report was presented, I asked him a string of questions that were all in one simple form: “If PUP was passed, could a presbytery choose to ordain someone who _________ (fill in the blank)”. His answer was always a quick, simple “Yes!” The point was, in his mind, the PUP allowed for any and all beliefs and actions to be scrupled and approved if a church or presbytery chose to do so.
Is this “absurd”? Apparently not to small majorities of the last two A’s.
I think what the last two GA have given us is not a crisis about homosexuality, but a crisis about the constitution. If any constitutional provision can be negated simply by an AI, then the constitution is useless and the role presbyteries comes to nothing. This is just the beginning. Wait to see how many overtures come to the next GA that request an AI, not a constitutional amendment.
Certainly, the real John Knox must have steam coming out of his ears to hear his name connected to any of this.
Reader Response :
Now that we’ve demonstrated what we all knew last year and the year before, that we have varying takes on Scripture and how it’s to be read, received, interpreted, preached and lived … Where do we go from here?
I’ve had the privilege of reading Gerald Sittser’s book, “Love One Another: Becoming the Church Jesus Longs for,” wherein Sittser reminds us, There is something more important than being right. That something is being loving. Jesus Christ, the LORD of the church, calls us to obey one supreme command: to love one another as Jesus has loved us No disagreement is so important, no division so final, no clash so intense that we are relieved of the responsibility to live like Jesus.
Even as I type these words, I can hear a chorus of folks saying, “Well, Jesus spoke pretty harshly to the Pharisees and told His disciples to shake dust at those who didn’t receive them.”
Yes, yes, yes … but if those be the words that guide and determine how we deal with one another in the same household of faith, those of our kind, who profess the name of Jesus (what shall we do with that? Declare them lairs, deceivers, deceived?), then we have broken with the One who dies for the world and offers forgiveness to all. And if all we call love are those who stand in agreement us, then how can that be labeled love. Jesus put His finger on such tiny sentiments when He asks, For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Love, defined by God, draws the circle large.
We have driven the stake into the ground so many times, we have drawn lines in the sand, and while feeling some personal victory in hurling charges at one another, questioning one another’s faith, and going through every statement with a fine-toothed comb hoping to find some error, some misstatement, something we can question dogmatically, we further crucify Jesus on the cross of our own pride and stubbornness.
We must never forget who crucified Jesus: religious folk who were expert at straining gnats and swallowing camels.
Being raised in the heart of Dutch Calvinism, a graduate of Calvin College and Western Theological Seminary, having read most of Calvin and tons of Calvinist scholars, I know the value of dogma, but Rob Bell of Mars Hill in Grandville, MI accurately writes: The moment God is figured out with nice neat lines and definitions, we are no longer dealing with God. We are dealing with somebody we made up, and, Doctrine is a wonderful servant and a horrible master (Velvet Elvis, p.25).
At this point in time, we have substituted pronouncements for conversation. Email doesn’t help; in cyberspace, we can safely hide behind our self-erected monuments of rectitude, believing the other to be enemy.
Is this what Jesus would have for us?
Believe what you will, believe what you must, but we must not break faith and trust with one another. There is something more important than being right
Reader Response :
The change for the church, as I see it, is being able to minister effectively to a different world. I won't go into the details of Post Modernism, but I believe its a reality to contend with. The speakers and leadership of the conference were not prescriptive in what the church needs to look like. They WERE prescriptive however in the need for renewal in Jesus Christ - a calling beyond 'belief' to 'following'. (We have many who claim to be Christians, but how many actually are Christ-Followers?) Sorry you did not like the leadership lineup. I thought it was rather diverse. I certainly did not agree with everything that was said.
One change I see we need is for young adults to be able to take ownership of the Church as older generations die off. There is a financial reality however that staves this off. The senior generations hold the purse strings, and so the church is slow to allow things into worship and church life that are relevant to young adults. SO YAs vote with their feet and the continuity of the practice of faith is not being transferred. In some cases however it is being invented anew, such as Covenant Community Church in Louisville.
Change is inevitable. We create it ourselves. Can't there be a win-win as we figure out how to continue to be the church together? I left the conference with a resolve to continue to dream faithfully, keep in touch with other dreamers and take baby steps with my current congregation. Sorry you chose not to be there.
Reader Response :
To Barbara Kellam-Scott,
Two things I would say.
1) Your notion of revelation reminds me of what I once heard characterized as "the inspiration of the moment."
2) Your comment about one of the "Constitutional Questions" asked at ordination and installation seems to forget an important point in it. You state, "I affirm, as I did at my ordination (ruling elder), that it contains "the unique and authoritative witness" to what others of God's beloved children, in very different times and places from mine, could make of their experience of Grace, their wordS, interpreted and reinterpreted through millennia of oral tradition, commentary, selection, redaction, translation, and versioning."
What you have forgotten is that this same question asks you to affirm that the Bible is "God's word to me." You have denied that in your posting.
Reader Response :
Aaron,
Elaborate on "the change" that we need to see and embrace. Given the selection of the speakers for the conference, I seriously wonder it is a "change" that we all can embrace.
Reader Response :
Care to elaborate on your view of that problem Walter?
From the lyrics of David LaMotte: "There isn't much we get to keep. Keep the Change."
I attended the conference. I was significantly renewed in my own spirit by the speakers and the interaction with other attendees. My biggest concern is how to encourage people in the pew's heads out of the sand and see the change, and the need to respond to it. People tend not to see the need to do anything until their in crisis mode. Bring on the crisis!
Reader Response :
The whole direction of the "Church Unbound" conference as reflected in this piece reminds me of a discussion I had with a group of ministers in the wake of the PUP Report. One of the ministers said (and others agreed), "I like the ambiguity of the report, because it reflects the ambiguity of our time."
Looks to me like this conference did to. However, I think that this is a problem.
Reader Response :
Dennis, we certainly have different views of Scripture, but I'm not sure which is higher, lower, or more dangerous to the community. (At least in using that word you've kept to a piece of the topic of the original blog of this thread.)
I am sure that you've misunderstood my claim of authority, because I claim authority only to say what does or does not witness to God's Grace to me and at a particular moment (though I will acknowledge there are some small bits in which I almost never find Grace, and those I avoid). I don't see how that authority can be questioned. What I most appreciate about my community (PCUSA large and small) supporting that authority is that my community is officially open to hear what I have found, and that the cloud of witnesses (including those represented in the Bible as actors, recorders, and interpreters) is ready to engage me in the continuing work of interpretation. I don't consider that work any more finished than the witness, and I thank God for it.
bks
Reader Response :
@bks
Wow, you have a very loooow view of Scripture. Of course we live in a post-historical critical era and must take historical, cultural, rhetorical context into consideration when engaging in interpretation. It seems as though you've taken a position that places yourself over, or at least on par with the text. That seems dangerous, unwise, and ultimately untenable for the denomination.
It is dangerous because you, a redeemed-sinner is making yourself an authority on what and what does not count as a witness to God's grace. It is unwise because, well to put it crudely, who the heck are you? Should the witness of Scripture bow before you just because you happen to live at this time and in this place, where we 'know so much better than they [the writers, redactors, oral sources] did.' Lastly it is untenable because it represents the worst of Protestant ecclesiology, hyper-individualization of interpretation. We read Scripture as a community, a global and historical community. Your position on what or what does not count as God's word is measured against that cloud of witnesses, you would do well to keep that in mind.
Reader Response :
Friends, much as I appreciate the conversation I see going on here, it also seems we're again talking past each other because we're speaking somewhat different languages. I see phrases like "God's revealed word" (and sigh relief that it's a small w), and even Drew talks about "the intent of" single verses from Genesis. These just aren't concepts that are either going to win over "the other" or beat her/im into submission.
I myself do not believe that the Bible is God's or anyone's revealed word. I affirm, as I did at my ordination (ruling elder), that it contains "the unique and authoritative witness" to what others of God's beloved children, in very different times and places from mine, could make of their experience of Grace, their wordS, interpreted and reinterpreted through millennia of oral tradition, commentary, selection, redaction, translation, and versioning. They include witness to some things that were not from Grace. I promised only to struggle to let that witness reveal God's Word to me, and sometimes, with some of the words, it's a losing battle. A big part of the reason I'm a Presbyterian (or active in any church, I must say), is that this church empowers and encourages me to continue that work of interpretation, always embracing the possibilty that I could be entirely wrong. I welcome the opportunity to hear others' interpretations, but I cannot start from an assumption that they're right and I'm wrong (or the other way around). It is indeed a process of discernment that must always be open to coming to the unexpected — to God doing something new, in 2008, with me and with you.
All that said, I have a very simple question for all and sundry: Please show me the biblical evidence for our definition of "marriage." I don't mean "he took her to wife," which is just as well translated "as his woman." I've seen mentions of wedding feasts, but nothing of any of the vows and rites that we find so crucial. To go back to Genesis, who married Adam and Eve? Oh yeah, it's a story told by others long after the putative events, not a timely record that we would recognize as historical. But if this is the ultimate model of God's revealed intention for all humanity, and if the writers of the story had a concept of marriage that we would recognize, wouldn't they have put something of it in their account?
bks
Reader Response :
Question is this: What is the intent of the Genesis passages (1:27, 2:24) without which we would not be having this discussion at all? Is it not for the purposes of pro-creation? What of relationships that cannot or choose not to pro-create?
Two caveats, I am not convinced that Paul had homosexual relationships in mind at all that would be of a committed nature. In fact it is hard to argue that the general context from what we know that the idea of homosexuality would be all that supported in the Jewish diaspora or elsewhere. But contexts do change over time and hence our readings change over time. Gagnon makes two points here:
1. That sin itself was not seen as something we can control, and so homosexuality is no different. Therefore, it should be struggled with at all costs as other sins. However, the tension point in Romans is that we are all sinners, that the law condemns us as a result, and that because of the resurrection there is no longer condemnation. While it does not give license to sin, the law is no longer the means by which salvation can be achieved. It is wholly an act of grace by God that saves. That is a point that I have not seen much of in Gagnon's argument. Now I am sure he has accounted for it before, but the several pieces of his I have read make no attempt to voice the tension between the law and grace which seems essential.
2. The issue with slavery and why it is not a good comparison seems to do with the tensions regarding slavery in Scripture. True there are tensions, but these have to do with the treatment of a slave and not the existence of slaves. The message is clear, it is OK to have a slave, just treat them well. If you are a slave, find God in the midst of your lot in life. Now our enlightened intuition tells us that even benevolent slavery is not a good thing. That itself is in tension with Scripture. Moreover, in keeping with Genesis, there is a clear order of creation in which a woman has a certain set of roles to perform and a man has a certain set of roles to perform. And again, these do have to do with the same order of creation that Gagnon argues as foundational to Paul and even Jesus. So I would ask for consistency here. If the order of creation goes beyond anatomical differences, then the differences that are complementary need to be consistent else our decisions are quite arbitrary with the role of women in the church.
In short the role of women in society and the homosexual issue come from the same set of socio-cultural assumptions that all have to do with the proper ordering of creation. Even though the role of women became more "equal" for Paul in some circumstances, it is clear that they still had a role that was subservient to men. And this still seems to be the main issue with homosexuality - a disturbance of the assumed order of complementary roles. The Catholic church is perhaps the most consistent here.
The main question is this: Can two people in a loving relationship regardless of gender receive the grace of Christ?
So my position is rather in keeping with Paul and the evidence to which I have been a witness of homosexual unions - the love and grace of Christ can indeed be received in the context of these relationships and it is best therefore to err on the side of grace where God is clearly present.
Reader Response :
"There is enough reasonable doubt in the [Biblical] text to suggest that same sex relationships are not all sinful". Drew, I think this is well stated - probably the key discussion point. Of course I disagree with the statement, but it is a starting point.
I don't see how it could be deemed reasonable to assume that same sex relationships are not all sinful from a text that never even hints that any type of homosexual relationship is blessed by God, and, which, when it talks about sexual relationships that are blessed, always describes them between a man and a women within a life-long marital commitment.
What is the Biblical argument for this "reasonableness"? Given God's original creation of male and female and Christ's definitive endorsement of this God-designed sexual order (Matt. 19) how is it reasonable to jump to the conclusion that God really meant to say that some homosexual relationships were blessed too?
Saying that one Greek word in 1 Corinthians "might" not mean "homosexual relationships" does little to further a positive affirmation of some homosexual relationships.
Again - as I have said before - the burden of proof is on the liberal/progressive viewpoint given what the only clear sexual ethic is in the Bible - man and women within the bounds of marriage. A man can have a loving relationship with another man - the Bible simply says that that relationship is not to be a sexual one or it is not blessed by God - it is sinful.
As to my "let you destroy yourself" comment, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. My point was simply that, if homosexual relationships are sinful, it would not be loving to tell people that they are OK, anymore that it is loving to tell someone who continually commits adultery, lies, and exploits the poor that it is OK. Sin is destructive in all its forms - it is loving to encourage sinners to repent.
As to your comments about slavery and women - Gagnon does a good job of showing that category mistake people make in this regard. For one, they do not have anything to do with sexual relationships. A better comparison to look at would be incest or bestiality.
Reader Response :
I wanted to let you know how much I appreciated your "editor's outlook" article in the May 5 edition, focusing on Aubrey Brown. Aubrey and Sarah were dear friends to Peggy and me. I knew them when I was growing up in Richmond, and some of their children are still good friends - our having served on Presbytery youth councils and going to college together.
But these two saints of the church were especially attentive and caring to Peggy and me during my 12 years as president of PSCE. Rarely if ever did they miss a function to which they were invited to our home, when we were hosting some church or political dignitary, or a committee of the denomination. Frequently one or both of them would come to my office, and sit down to talk over some issue facing the denomination or their vision for PSCE. I loved them both, and was as smitten by Sarah's warmth and insight as I was impressed, inspired and frightened of the man. His straightforward manner contrasted greatly with my "desire to please" and I learned a great deal from him concerning the need to be forthright in my convictions.
After much conversation concerning his desire to continue his and Sarah's legacy (my words - not his) the two of them established several scholarships to be given by PSCE at the General Assembly - to churches who distinguished themselves in such areas as children's ministry or youth work. They always wanted to be sure that their focus on the true meaning of ministry in the church was carried forth. They wanted little or no attention focused on them, although I did persuade Aubrey to let us use Sarah's name in one of the scholarships. He did it reluctantly, but with that shy smile and those twinkling eyes - for his love of his bride was the stuff of legends.
So, due to my personal schedule delaying my readings of the May OUTLOOKS until we were at the beach last week, I wanted to express my heartfelt appreciation to you for celebrating Aubrey as you did.
And by the way Jack, Aubrey would be proud of your leadership of the OUTLOOK, and I believe he would agree with me that you are indeed enriching the church again through your most effective leadership. We, as a church, are fortunate to have had Aubrey's leadership, and equally fortunate to have yours. Thank you.
Heath Rada
Reader Response :
Pastor John Buchanan’s remarks this week to the Covenant Network at the 218 General Assembly compel an answer.
In regard to the Covenant Network’s goal of gaining ordination of homosexuals by removing current ordination standards, Buchanan is quoted as saying: “We’re going to get there because our children are already there. We’re going to get there because business is already there. Education is already there. California is already there. For crying out loud, the military is almost there.”… “The heart of the gospel is inclusion,”… “Change will come because this is not our church but his. It is not the Presbyterian Coalition’s church or the Covenant Network’s church but Christ’s.”
With these words, Buchanan makes abundantly cloudy his view of the difference between the church and business, education, California and “for crying out loud” the military. I’m confused – does he believe the Church belongs to Christ? Or should the church be inspired to change because these secular institutions have changed? Those who have long suspected Buchanan and the Covenant Network of misunderstanding the nature, mission and identity of the church have reason to stay suspicious.
Secondly, Mr. Buchanan says: “The heart of the Gospel is inclusion”. Really? According to what definition? Surely God wants all of his broken children to be included in a restored rightness - but the Gospel offers only one way to that rightness, excluding all others.
The heart of the Gospel is the clear revelation that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life – set against a thousand other would-be ways, truths and life-styles. The heart of the Gospel is Scripture’s clear path home for a world hopelessly lost and headed for death. The heart of the Gospel is not inclusion –at the expense of truth, repentance and change - it is direction because we are directed to Christ and to no other. It is direction precisely because there are false ways. It is a gracious word of “go this way – not that way”. The Gospel excludes many, more deadly ways than the one way to life it espouses. It says: Many roads lead to death but one leads to life. Jesus is Life. Repent and believe on Him. Live a new life.
Inclusion? No, not as California or the Covenant Network mean it. The heart of the Gospel is Salvation. Hence the necessary blood of Christ. The Gospel heart beats with the blood of Christ –poured out on a cross –poured out in death –a death made necessary by our exclusion of God – a death to atone for sin –sexual and otherwise. The healing blood of Christ also pours from the mouth of Jesus who often spoke words of warning - words that are far from inclusive - words of sheep and goats, of foolish maidens shut out of feasts, of blind guides, of men going away sad, of weeping and gnashing of teeth, of whitewashed tombs and broods of vipers. Words about repent and turn and change. We are told to respond positively to the Gospel and that not everybody will. To act as if behavior is of no importance is to muffle the Gospel and deprive people of the full, costly message of Grace. The heart of the Gospel is Jesus. Sinners of all brands need to come to him and according to John 14, only those who do so are saved. And then we who do are told to forsake sin – not redefine it to justify our own personal disobedience.
Like opening worship at this year’s G.A, where an old tune (O for a Thousand Tongues to Sing) was used to hide new words and like the current proposal at G.A. to change the clear words of an old Confession (Heidelberg) to hide new meaning, Mr. Buchanan and the Covenant Network rework familiar words (Gospel, Inclusion) to offer their novel vision of the Church and God’s grace. This vision is dominant in the offices and structures of the PCUSA and in similar organizations – education, California– but for “crying out loud” – don’t let it win the day in Christ’s church. Now is the time for Presbyterians to stop singing along with these changes. It is time to cry out loud! Don’t let the ancient church’s tune hide deadly new words. Who will stand up and cry out?
But be warned, speaking up to the “inclusionists” might get you excluded. Speaking truth to current power or asserting long held reformed distinctives has shown that the full heart of those pushing the agenda of the Covenant Network is not inclusion but justification, money, power and control. My experience is that they will exclude any who get in their way. They will change whatever structures or words seem to impede their progress. Speak up anyway – the full grace of the full Gospel is worth it.
What will you do?
Kirk Johnston
Recently excluded/defrocked PCUSA Pastor
Pastor of Lighthouse Presbyterian Church
Paola, Kansas
Reader Response :
continued...Dear colleague in Christ,
Something you ought to understand -- though I cannot quite figure out if you are a practicing heterosexual as I am -- is that we are ALL sexual beings, whether we are homosexual or heterosexual. Practice does not make you more one or the other. You are BORN heterosexual or homosexual. You did not choose which is your inclination. Like it or not, that is a God-given trait. Homosexuality occurs in about 1 in 10 of us. Something that occurs with that much regularity ought to engender something a bit more thoughtful than 'heterosexual ... gooood; homosexual ... baaad; heterosexual ... blessed, homosexual ... cursed;heterosexual ...God accepts them, homosexual ... God curses them.' Homosexuals, of whom I have several friends, just want to be treated as children of God. They do not want some self-righteous person telling them that God made a mistake with them -- that they ought not to have been created and they never will be acceptable to God until they see the light and become heterosexual. That is unbiblical.
You said your friends did not mince words when they confronted you with your sin. Let me not mince words either. Your god is too small. You god does not have enough to do if all he does is to pull out his score card and follow you around all day long, marking down every time you fail to follow the rules. That is not the creator of all that is. That is NOT the God and Father of our Lord Jesus the Christ. That is not the God who loves us and stands looking longingly for us when we wander far from home and who loves us enough to send his very best to convince us of that love. In fact, that being is not god at all. That being is a monster of your id.
Jerry is no angel -- any more than you or I. Jerry, by his own admission is a sinner like me. If Jerry had not come along and bragged, at a National Convention of God-fearing Christians that has the audacity to post the speeches on the internet of that convention, that EVANGELICALS have finally succeeded in tearing down the Presbyterian Church and were in the process of remaking it in THEIR image, I probably would not have written at all. If he had not said, on several occasions in that speech, that their fighting against their brothers and sisters in Christ was a sport ... a blood sport to be exact ... I probably would not have written at all. My friends told me that if I wrote the letter I could expect to have a lot of crazy, knee-jerk people write to berate me for having the audacity to criticize those who so relentlessly strive to destroy the church that millions of my brothers and sisters have struggled and died to build. I wrote it anyway ... and then only after a lot of prayer and re-write.
So, which side of this discussion do you want to come down one? Where do I place you in this discussion? Are you a thoughtful follower of Christ, or are you someone who needs to be superior to the rest of us liberals? If you are the former, then lets talk. If you are the other -- waste someone else's time.
Oh, by the way -- if you decide to be in the thoughtful Christian category -- have the courage of your convictions: sign your name.
Grace and peace,Scott
Reader Response :
Dear colleague in Christ,
Forgive me, I do not know how I should address you since you have chosen to avail yourself of the safety of anonymity.
I have read your response several times and finally determined that much of what you have written falls under the heading of sarcasm. For the most part I hope not to respond in kind as that is unworthy of either of us.
As I read your reply I was, each time, driven to ask myself, "Has the person read my entire article or did (s)he merely scan it for hot button items and take them out of context?" I am not sure. You congratulate Jerry for his stand but you have apparently not noticed that he largely ignored most of what I asked and chose, instead, to push the Coalition's agenda. I was ... and am ... looking for serious conversation on serious issues that are confronting our church and our faith.
So, let us begin to try again ... this time with you. You say you are a sinner. Welcome to the table. I am also a sinner as are all of my friends and some of those I would consider enemies -- except Christ told me that I ought not have any of those. So, I must confess to you that I continue to fail in this regard. On the other hand, it seems to me that you are so heavily focused on two sins ... abortion and homosexuality that none others are important. So, let me ask you. Is abortion any worse than allowing 10% of our children to go to bed hungry every night? Is rape any less significant a crime than stealing from the office? Is spousal abuse of any concern to you? And, if it is, why did you not list them as sins that you were indignant about? This is a concern that I have about Evangelicals. You are a one or two song -- long-playing monographic record. The rest of the multitude of sins that destroy the human family, the very people Christ died for, you blissfully ignore as if they are of no concern.
No where ... NOWHERE ... do I suggest that we ought to play without rules. Quite the contrary, the whole letter was about the rules. Perhaps you ought to go read my article again. This time a bit more carefully, without putting your axe to the grinder before you do.
Continued in next comment...
Reader Response :
Brian:
I too have done my fair share of exegesis so that is a red herring.
Issue of what the Bible explicitly teaches is also not all that compelling nor is the argument from tradition. Regardless of Paul's idea of slavery and how they should be treated, it is clearly never said that we cannot own workers to tidy up the place or tend to our fields without giving them a fair wage. The treatment of women and people of color follow the same course.
My argument is that there is enough reasonable doubt in the text to suggest that same sex relationships are not all sinful. The fear issue to which this post points is a reactionary response that will perhaps skew the results and the actual decision in order to provoke a disapproval of the GA's decisions which is based not on sound discussion, but on rhetoric. That is the part that is unhelpful. Clearly the charge is for people to go back to their presbyteries, engage in heartfelt and intentional discussion over the standards, and to approach this in as rational and level-headed manner as possible without using emotion as a level to elicit response. Doing otherwise would not be loving God and each other with our whole minds - an important command Jesus issued.
What is important is for everyone to bring their assumptions to the table and lay them bare for critique. We all have a tendency to bring untested assumptions to the table that we are overly protective of to a detrimental degree. If people's minds are made up before this process in the presbyteries begins it will be a disservice to the church and to this denomination. All sides of the issue have to be willing to give something up and to change in the process or the entire idea of "once reformed, always reforming" will be ignored as people become entrenched.
"I will encourage you destroy yourself" - I am not sure what this means. Unless you are suggesting that all people who are in same-sex relationships are going to hell. The evidence that homosexuals are destroying themselves runs in the other direction. Affirming these relationships will do a great deal to reduce the already dis-proportionately high suicide rate among closeted gay persons. Affirming this as a quite natural aspect of human sexuality would seem to promote health rather than harm.
Reader Response :
I continue to believe that we now know what the writers of the books of the Bible did not know thousands of years ago: God made some of us differently than others. I can not, therefore, believe that we should exclude homosexuals from full inclusion in the life of the Presbyterian Church. G-6.0106b must go.
ear Editor,
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Mr. Ferguson’s letter.
Just over $30 million in pledges were raised as part of the Mission Initiative: Joining Hearts and Hands campaign. There are many lessons to be learned from this campaign, including a growing tendency of many Presbyterians to fund mission at the most local level. We are proud that many presbyteries and congregations chose to use the Mission Initiative campaign as a means of securing pledges from their members for church growth and international mission personnel, and as a sign of their connectedness to the wider church.
Just a brief note about administrative expenses: The goal of the Mission Initiative: Joining Hearts and Hands wasn’t just about increasing the church’s financial resources, but rather about renewing the church for mission and learning new methods of funds development within congregations, presbyteries, and the General Assembly. For these reasons, the GAC invested $2.3 million into the campaign. As a result, only $2 million of the $30 million raised will go toward the administrative expenses of the campaign. While much of the funds raised will be used by presbyteries and congregations, each of those bodies has committed not only to raise the funds as part of the campaign, but also to use them within the purposes of the campaign. With a portion of the roughly $8 million to be administered by the GAC, we are pleased to have been able to send 34 new mission co-workers into Christ’s service around the world.
For a full discussion of the campaign challenges, campaign successes, and lessons learned, please read the full report: http://www.pcusa.org/gac/business/sept08/P103.pdf.
Blessings,
Linda Bryant Valentine