Letters

I have come to have a deep appreciation for the work of VOW and particularly for the excellent and unfailingly orthodox critiques of some of the current theological perspectives current among parts of the PC(USA).

And so I read with interest the description and critique of “The Lady’s Prayer” posted on the VOW website. I wasn’t disappointed. The article was well written, tightly reasoned, and theologically on target. Brittany Dowdy rightly identifies the shift from a focus on God and his revealed truth to a focus on the self and our experienced “truth”, as the underlying poisoned well from which this pseudo pagan prayer (and many of the other theological problems in our church) flow.

I was amazed to read at the end of the article that such theological insights and wisdom came from a college undergrad at Colorado State. As a Colorado State alum myself (class of ’96) and a current PC(USA) pastor I am delighted to know that this faithful sister in Christ, with such a keen intellect, is coming out of my old Alma Mater and is a part of the PC(USA). We certainly need leaders like her. Wherever God leads Ms. Dowdy vocationally in the future, it will surely be a blessing to us all.

Yours in Christ Jesus,

Brian Gawf
Associate Pastor,
First Presbyterian Church
Murfreesboro, TN
April 2007

E. Johnson's approach seems to be an amalgam of Gnostic and 21st century radical feminist thought liberally sprinkled with 18th century American Indian ghost dancing. V. Larson does a great job exposing this maundering for what it is. It's astonishing that anyone has bought into it, much less given it favorable reviews.

Why I haven’t read the entire Horizon issue referenced, if the only options given to dialogue with other faiths were “colonial” superiority or the modern liberal answer that all ways are legitimate, and thus, denying the explicit exclusiveness of some Biblical passages, then I am disappointed at such a limited horizon of interfaith dialogue. For add to those two models, the work, to name only three, of Mark Heim, Joseph DeNoia, and Stanley Hauerwas. Each of whom proclaims a distinctively orthodox Christian faith, but also a humbler more historically authentic faith. This third way is represented in the answers given by the Presbyterian Catechism to other faiths, which holds to the uniqueness of Christ’s atonement and Way, while calling us to be peaceful and humble when judging other faiths.

I've adopted a rubric that is to my mind of inestimable value. "I claim what I know, but don't claim what I don't." It is especially important on issues such as pluralism and the issue of whether Christ is the only way to salvation. There is nothing wrong, evil, or mis-guided to stand on the revealed truth that Christ is the only way to salvation. Simply promulgating God's revelation is what we are called to do. But what often follows can be harmful and even wrong-headed. That proposition not infrequently elicits the non-believer response (say, from an atheist or Muslim), "Well, are you saying that I am going to Hell?" My response is that I cannot say you are going to hell. That is pronouncing final judgment, a task not assigned to me. I can say God has revealed thus and such and says thus and such, but the application of who specifically is and who is not is not my job. If I am cornered with a statement like, "Well, the implication is that I as a non-believer in Christ will not inherit eternal life.", I simply respond that the implication is something between the person and God. I'm not in the mix or middle of that. "I claim what I know, but don't claim what I don't." While this means of dealing with a variety of thorny theological issues is to my mind the best tactic, it is not without resistance from without. In fact it can be irritating to those who disagree with you, for example, on the homosexual issue. If you come out and make the implication into a position and thus pronounce judgement, then they can label you as a racist, or homophobe, or condemning. But if you stop short of pronouncing judgment, this frustrates the objecter. And since they don't have the "condemnation/race/homophobic/narrow minded" card to play, they usually go to great lengths to get you to cross the line and venture into at least speculating into the realm of application. Thus a person has to be quite vigilant and diligant so as not to be coerced or forced to cross that line. The temptation is very real and indeed it is not that hard to be manuevered into crossing it. The effect, by theological necessity and Christ-like loving intent, is that a person does not come between God and the person with the struggle. Strictly speaking, the issue and struggle is between a given person and God, where it must remain. By not allowing yourself to be drawn into the middle of the issue, you refrain from being [used as] a barrier or distraction from or hindrance to God's grace. In any event, as to issues of homosexuality, the nature and source of salvation, and the nature and locus of what is authoritative, I adamantly cling to claiming what I know, but not what I don't. It seems to allow me to do what I need to do, believe what God has revealed, and mostly keep me out of hot water.

Thank you! Thank you for Viola Larson's much needed review of this latest issue of Horizons. As a husband of a PW member and pastor of a church that is committed to PW enterprises, it is not news to me that the PW organization is committed to errant views of our faith, but as I read the May/June issue, I was shocked at the total lack of concern for our biblical, confessional faith. W. Eugene March's essay in particular was utterly disturbing, not only for his blatant isogesis and twisting of the Scriptures, but also for his contempt for sharing the Gospel. How a Doctor of the Church can shower such contempt on our faith is unsettling and should be a wake up call to anyone who believes the words of our Lord and Savior to be Truth. Dr. March's teaching in this issue should be called what it is: heresy. Heresy is that which leads down the path of apostasy and to the destruction of souls. It sounds harsh to say that, but the time for blithely passing over these false teachings has done enough damage. The world needs Jesus Christ and by His grace, the true church of His redeemed will carry that mission forward, with or without Dr. March.

I enjoyed very much Viola Larson's erudite engagement with theologies of liberation and our use (or misuse?) of them in our search for God. However, I couldn't help but thinking that the quickest and simplest response (though perhaps not as acceptable to the academy?) would be to quote one more time from the opening chapter of John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion.

    "Without knowledge of self there is no knowledge
    of God... without knowledge of God there is no knowledge
    of self."

Thanks to Viola for keeping us on our toes and thinking about theology... thanks to you for giving her a venue.

I was greatly disappointed with a recent posting on VOW, which concluded by stating,

"But, it is my personal conviction that as this situation works its way out, we are to remain faithful and obedient disciples of Jesus Christ in the place where he has put us. For us to “cut and run” would be both cowardly and fruitless – cowardly because God has told us “to stand;” fruitless, because we would have to take ourselves with us when we leave."

I find it far more "cowardly and fruitless" to continue the endless cycle we are in. If we are to stay, then we must truly fight the fight and stop playing political games and/or excusing ourselves from boldness and direct confrontation over the issues.

It is easy to call names of those who want to have an open, thorough and prayerful consideration of the separation option. It would be far better to put up more courageous and bold action against those who are perverting God's word and actively protesting the lack of judicial measures to uphold our denomination's constitution than to attack orthodox believers who simply disagree on where to go from here.

VOW does great work but the problem is NOT so much with those who are sick and tired of the mostly "cowardly and fruitless" methods used for 25 years in this battle.

I read Lesson Eight: "You Cannot Keep Silent-- You Must Speak!" by The Rev. Steven S. Bryant.

While the scenario is plausible and I appreciated the interpretation in the lesson, I am grieved that you had to include the stumbling block: making sure nobody would mistake you for a Baptist. I doubt that you would tolerate an inaccurate or accurate stereotype of a Jew , an African American, or a gay person, but a stereotypical Baptist is always fair game.

This is a stumbling block, because if you are a Presbyterian who relies upon your Bible for your understanding of God, is sincere about applying doctrinal understanding to your life, and is willing to strive for more godly behavior in spite of your failures, you will soon be accused of being Baptist. HORRORS! You have been well taught that you don't want that to stick, so you tone down your commitment to a more orderly and decent level. Your relationship with God has been stifled. The communion of the saints has been undermined.

By now you have probably identified me as a Baptist. As the Presbyterian Elder turned Baptist that I am, I have a question: Will God more easily forgive a person who heartily accepts His Word with incomplete understanding of all the nuance, or the person who shuts down a seeker telling them they are a Bible thumper, and checked their intellect at the door?

People are storming off by the thousands when they are ridiculed for their belief and find none at their "church". As a recovering Presbyterian, I can tell you there is abundant joy in sharing the communion with people who have checked neither their enthusiasm, nor their souls at the door!

Baptists' and Presbyterians' differences in doctrine are minuscule. (Mostly when you baptize and how much water is involved). We should encourage and love each other.

It's a sad thing that the least plausible part of the scenario in this excellent lesson is a Baptist who had transferred her letter to a Presbyterian church. My guess is that she did not come back.

This coming June Rev. Eddie Soto will be leading a team of eleven (11) members of the Faith Presbyterian Church, Tallahassee, Florida on a mission trip to Brazil, South America. They will be there for two weeks and in one of those weeks they will be helping a Presbyterian-related ministry called Association Children of Bethlehem (ACB). ACB was started 9 years ago by Presbyterian lay people who were concerned with children born with the HIV-AIDS virus or whose parents had the virus and were dying as a result. These lay people were involved in chaplaincy ministry in a local hospital in the city of Sorocaba, State of Sao Paulo, Brazil. The mothers who had AIDS were concerned of what would happen to their children when they died. As a result a nursery for the children was started and this has developed into a ministry which meets the total needs of these children and their families: spiritually, physically and mentally.

Today ACB is recognized by the United Nations as one of the six best programs dealing with the HIV-AIDS crisis in Brazil. They have their own building (built with the help of the Presbyterian Church USA in Louisville, Kentucky, the Outreach Foundation of the
Presbyterian Church USA in Franklin, Tennessee and Medical Missions in Columbia, South Carolina) that cares for the children as well as a house, with house parents, for children whose parents have died from the virus. They also have an elementary school for these children since in Brazil there is discrimination in the public schools towards children who come from a home affected by the AIDS virus. All in need are helped regardless of race or religious affiliation and ACB continues to maintain its strong Christian foundation and receives support from different denominational Christian churches.

Among their programs are the following: monthly food stipends for very poor families, a full-time nursery, a program for pregnant women with AIDS, and an educational program to help needy women learn a trade. A chaplain is provided to help with spiritual needs as
well as a clinic to care for the health of the children and their families. ACB is supported by
individuals, churches and organizations interested in this ministry to the poorest of the poor in Brazil.

The mission team from Faith Presbyterian will help with a work project on the premises of the ACB property as well as help with the ministries to the women and children (many of whom are widows and orphans). The dates of the trip are June 4-19. If you would like more information please contact Rev. Eddie Soto, Faith Presbyterian Church, Tallahassee, Florida, (850)385-6151. If you would like to know more of ACB and receive their English Newsletter by e-mail please contact Mr. Paulo Sergio Carvalhaes of ACB at:
pscarva@terra.com.br

Every Sunday, thousands of Presbyterians go to church, sing three hymns,
ask for prayers for themselves and others, hear the announcements, leave their "fire
insurance" in the offering plate and go home thinking they have "done church" and we're guilty of letting them think that's alright!

Usually there is little or no growth and, even if there is, it is usually from transfers rather than conversion.

Winning the world for Christ is the mission of the church and we Presbyterians seemingly do everything we can to avoid the "Great Commission"!

Evangelism is the best kept secret in our great denomination and if ANY is done, it involves the use of several programs/training from denominations OTHER than the PCUSA! We argue about this social issue, that doctrine, and the other ministry, and fail in the most fundamental job; that of winning others to him!

We huddle behind our circled wagons, watching the world go by and our denomination is slowly dying! From '1965 until now, it has been steadily declining at about 1% per year. In another 60 years, we will be history!

We have become "cozy little, feel-good, social clubs with a religious theme" to quote a pastor acquaintance!

Carl Spiva
Elder (and currently Moderator of the Stockton Presbytery)
March 30, 2004

I continue to be puzzled by some reactions to the possibility that the
Presbytery of Western North Carolina may cease to validate the Reverend
Parker Williamson's ministry as editor of The Presbyterian Layman. Many
people claim that a vote to invalidate will be an attempt to "silence"
Mr. Williamson, and that he will of necessity lose his ordained status.

Mr. Williamson will be "silenced" as editor only if the Layman ceases to
employ him, or if the Presbyterian Lay Committee ceases to fund the
publication. If there are churches that contribute funds to the Layman,
they will be under no obligation to stop; they can simply report their
contributions as "other mission."

Nor need a vote against validation cause Mr. Williamson lose his
ordination or, except perhaps temporarily, his voice and vote in
Presbytery meetings. If he cannot persuade the Presbytery to
reconsider, he is free to apply for "Member at Large" status. We have a
number of ordained ministers in this category in Newton Presbytery.

If the Presbytery votes against continuing to validate Mr. Williamson's
ministry, the message will be that they do not wish to be associated
with the work of the Layman. That is their privilege, if they wish.
The right of free speech, and freedom of the press, is just that—-the
right to say or write what one wishes. The government may not
prosecute, but there may be other consequences, such as losing the
approval or financial support of one's peers.

Thank you for the insightful, thoughtful, even-handed piece on the Rev.
Parker Williamson. In light of my own experiences as a theological
conservative in my liberal-dominated presbytery, I know that the points you
make are right on-target and your appeal for fair treatment of Rev.
Williamson most appropriate!

What the political "powers that be" in Western North Carolina are doing to
try to silence Rev. Williamson is nothing new -- the religious leaders of
Jesus' day had Jesus killed for the very same reasons! Interesting, isn't
it, how history keeps repeating itself, over and over! And we can be
confident, and take comfort in the fact that what God has been planning to
accomplish in and through Parker Williamson and his ministry will be
accomplished, no matter the opposition.

Back in the summer of 2000, I heard Rev. Williamson speak at a prayer
conference held at the Montreat Conference Center in North Carolina. In
recounting the story of how, back in 1995 at the General Assembly meeting,
an overture to censor The Presbyterian Layman was soundly defeated in answer
to prayer, Rev. Williamson said something like this: "If you are attacked,
you are not to fight back. You are to drop down on your knees and pray --
and stay there." I trust that that's just what Rev. Williamson is doing
now, and I also am on my knees to support him and his ministry in prayer.

May God's perfect will triumph in Rev. Williamson's case at the next meeting
of the Presbytery of Western North Carolina!

It is very apparent that Mr. Walters is the one not informed. You don't
invalidate someone's ministry for causes of "character and conduct" and
allow said minister then to go right into another ministry, or am I not
informed?

The most specific the Committee on Ministry has been is to say that they
came to their decision after reviewing Parker Williamson's "Declaration
of Conscience". In other words, it is about what Parker Williamson
thinks and writes because they have not specifically accused him of any
gross abuses which would be considered by the church as not in keeping
with the character and conduct of a Minister of Word and Sacrament. How
can they? He is not guilty of any such accusation. But, there are some
who will be standing in the pulpits of some of our Presbyterian Church,
U.S.A. churches...those who have blatantly defied the Book of Order, the
General Assembly and the body in total that voted not to validate the
ministry of anyone who is an active and professed homosexual. Where is
the judicial action against those who are really guilty in character and
conduct?

No, Mr. Walters, it is not just you ordinary, run of the mill decision by
the Committee on Ministry not to revalidate a ministry. It is most
definitely the agenda of this committee to rid the denomination of a man
who is rocking their luxury liner to remind them whose boat this church
belongs to and Who is its Captain!

I was greatly impressed by Sylvia Dooling’s article you linked to. Her point is well made and her conclusion right on the spot. She reminds us that “If a majority of the members of the Presbytery of Western North Carolina are tempted to vote to silence Parker Williamson because they can, they need to stop first and ask, ‘who is going to be next?’”

Sadly, I believe the answer is that those who will vote to be rid of Parker Williamson don’t care about the answer to Sylvia Dooling’s question. Why? Simply because they do not believe it will ever be them.

But I am even more saddened by the thought of those who will not rise up and speak in Rev. Williamson’s defense – and these are on all side of the issue. Liberal prevaricators, lacking any real integrity for the position they have spouted, saying they’d defend to the death the right of others to speak their mind without fear won’t. Gutless wonders of the right will quietly commiserate while ringing their hands rather than taking a public stand regardless of the cost. And the fence straddling middle will plead “Why can’t we all just get along” not wanting to face the fact that Jerusalem has nothing in common with Babylon.

While I hope I am wrong, when the vote comes I expect Parker Williamson will be defrocked. The thought-Nazis and speech-fascists will prevail and find themselves another step closer to the final solution of the evangelical question.

As I read Sylvia Dooling’s article, I could not help but recall Martin Niemöller’s confession of sin in the face of the holocaust: “First they came for the Jews. I was silent. I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists. I was silent. I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was silent. I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me. And there was no one left to speak for me.”

I hate to tell us (sic) this but you are misinformed about what is going on in Western NC Presbytery. The Com task force was chrged (sic) with the task of reviewing all of the validaed (sic) minstries (sic) of its members (sic) To date 30 of these have been reviewd (sic) Two were reccomended (sic) for non renwal (sic) Parker was one and the other is a person engaged in patoral (sic) counseling.

Should the presbytery act affirimatively (sic) on the COM reccomendation (sic). Parker and the other person have several options.

1. They could decide to pastor one of the many vacant churchs (sic) in WNC presbytery.

To suggest that the process currently under way in WNC Presbytery is some grand conspiracy to "get" parker is with out (sic) Merit.