|
Letters to the Editor
Re.: Why not replace (or retain) G-6.0106b? by Barbara Wheeler: It is not my practice to abstain from voting. On any given issue, having heard the arguments, for and against, pro and con, rarely am I unable to make a choice between yea and nay. I respect the right of people to abstain, and I’m glad Maj. Henry Martyn Robert* made that option available to us, but it’s an option I don’t often employ. But of late, I’ve been toying with the option of asking my Presbytery (New Hope) to officially abstain from voting on the overture to replace the language of Amendment B with the language proposed at the General Assembly meeting in San Jose. It’s not that I don’t have an opinion on the matter before us. It’s that I don’t think we’re ready to vote. This became obvious to me at our most recent Presbytery meeting. During the course of the meeting, we were invited to participate in an exercise which allowed us to express our opinions on one of the divisive issues of the day, but to express that opinion using an instrument called “A Gradient of Agreement”. Thus, instead of being asked to agree or disagree with the given proposition, we were invited to place ourselves at a point along a spectrum, on the assumption that while some of us stand at polar extremes on these issues, there are others of us scattered along the various points in between. Once the ballots were distributed, we were asked to consider the following statement: Resolved--The Presbyterian Church (USA) should ordain practicing homosexuals to the office of Minister of word and sacrament, Elder and Deacon. Then, we were to indicate, along a “gradient of agreement”, our response to that statement. While you might want to Google “gradient of agreement” to learn more about this strategy for decision making, for now, what you need to know is that we had eight (8) options from which to choose. And so when our Presbytery gathered at the Vance-Granville Community College on a sunny day in October, the 205 commissioners placed themselves along the spectrum in the following way: | Unqualified endorsement, I like it: 59 | | Endorsement with a minor point of contention, basically I like it: 16 | | Agreement with reservations, I can live with it: 34 | | Abstain, I have no opinion: 5 | | Stand aside, I don’t like this, but I don’t want to hold up the group: 6 | | Formal disagreement, I want my disagreement noted in writing: 11 | | Formal disagreement, I don’t want to be involved in implementation: 12 | | Block, I veto this proposal: 62 |
What are we to make of this? Well, in an age where politicians are delighted with any margin of victory, however slim, it could be interpreted to mean that having 55% of the Presbytery on one side of the abstentions and 45% of the Presbytery on the other side of the abstentions is a clear mandate to move ahead with the abolition of the current ordination standards. Political candidates, of course, are all about winning and losing, and sadly, this denominational debate seems to have been mostly about that, too. But when I look at the spread of numbers, what it tells me is that my Presbytery is not even close to being ready to vote on the issue at the center of this exercise, not when 59 and 62 (approximately 60% of us), have drawn our line in the sand at opposite ends of the spectrum. As the moderator of a Session, if I sensed this level of division over a matter of any importance at all, I’d suggest that we are not yet ready to move forward, and that we need to spend more time in prayer and Bible study, in consensus building, and in discovering why brothers and sisters in Christ see things so very differently. I have long contended that we Presbyterians are a much better deliberative body than we are a legislative body. We have the capacity to think deeply, to ponder the intricacy and nuance of sensitive issues, to appreciate the insights and observations of others, to learn and grow together as we discuss and debate. But at meetings of the General Assembly, the clock ticks, and adjournment looms, and even when we have reached no consensus on matters that threaten to divide us, commissioners are asked to vote, yea or nay, up or down, and depending on the vote, and your point of view, there are winners and losers. Then, of course, these matters are sent to the Presbyteries, where we are asked to do the same thing, to vote yea or nay, up or down, whether we are ready or not. And from where I sit, often on the back row of my Presbytery meetings, I don’t think we’re ready. Granted, the overture we are being asked to consider is not written in the stark terms used in our exercise. But that is how it will be interpreted, by the advocates and the opponents of our current ordination standards. Actually, I wish the language we are being asked to consider had been the language of the original Amendment B. But it wasn’t. And so here we are again, being asked to be legislators, when a legislative solution will only yield another crop of winners and losers. Thus, my inclination is to abstain, mostly because I don’t think either result will do a thing to bring health and vitality to the body of Christ, partially as an expression of weariness over a debate that cannot be legislated away, and also because I know that in my own little corner of the Presbyterian world, we’re not ready, not by a long shot. And that, I think, is something on which my neighbors in the Presbytery might agree.
*of Robert’s Rules fame. Submitted by Ed McLeod, pastor of First Presbyterian Church, Raleigh, NC. |
|
Just before noon on November 11 Florida Presbytery began the vote on the BOO amendments. When we came to vote on 08-C my mind began to wander and to wonder. As we were forced to choose between the Greek “sympathy” and the Latin “compassion,” I looked around, and it seemed to me that the eyes of my fellow commissioners had that “deer caught in the headlights” look in them. We seemed to be standing on the same theological “slippery slope” that the Church stood on almost a thousand years ago — torn between the Greek and Latin Fathers — before it slid down into a split that has not yet been healed. The eyes of these commissioners seemed to say, “Are we being forced to choose again between those two ancient factions in the church?” After centuries of following the Latin Fathers’ teaching that the great human problem is sin, we have finally come to see wisdom in the Greek Fathers’ teaching that the great human problem is death. Were we, in being asked to choose between “sympathy” and “compassion”, being forced to choose between the Latin immorality and the Greek mortality as competing explanations of the human dilemma? In being asked to switch from “sympathy” to “compassion” were we also being asked to give up all the wisdom and insight of the Greek Fathers and march forth behind the Latin Fathers? All this went on in my mind, and I was settling in for a lengthy and learned debate on a thousand year old issue that is still unresolved — mortality vs. immorality, Greek Fathers vs. Latin Fathers, East vs. West. Then before I knew what was happening the vote on 08-C was taken and passed without debate, and the presbytery moved on. Once again I had misread the look in the eyes of the commissioners — it was not panic, just boredom — but it still left me wondering!
Bill Lee, honorably retired Tallahassee, Fla. |
I look forward to the other two essays by Erwin Barron on this topic. He puts things in place well when he speaks of the seemingly endless battle between the authorities of the Bible versus experience. I also appreciate how he deals with and challenges all of us on how to engage the two authorities in a kind of process dialogue. Still, I think that the problem is deeper than this and Barron may address it soon. The problem is two-fold, as I see it. One, those who rely on the Bible (admittedly, they also read it in terms of their experience) do not actually base much of their emotional conclusions on what the Bible actually says. They generally lack “good enough” word study, knowledge of content, the culture, etc., on many subjects. The obvious one today is what we all know as “homosexuality.” They base it upon what their own day, culture, and poor English translations (their experience) have led them to believe. We did this with slavery and the place of women in ministry, too. They take their positions as “gospel” when, in Biblical fact, it is not. Such present, deep-seated, hardcore positions often do not reflect a real knowledge of the very Scripture they misuse for their positions. The “plain meaning of the text” has its place, at times, but many accepted interpretations of the Bible today do not render the correct wording for the meaning of a particular term used by the Greek or Aramaic writers in the context of their own day and time. This is THE basis for our fighting! Until we actually know better how to interpret Scripture and allow it to interpret and change us, this problem will remain. Secondly, experience, reason, science, etc., are good to honor as legitimate secondary authorities, for sure. But, they need to be able to muster past what would be a far better understanding and method of interpreting Scripture. Unfortunately for “experience,” the movement of time, evolving information, discoveries, consensus agreements, etc., also leave us vulnerable to give either not enough, too much, or wrong amounts of experience-authority to any contemporary issue. Even experience, what with human pride, must remain open to questioning. In short, neither “side” really knows enough about what the Bible actually says and means in its own time nor does the other “side” always have a clear picture of various contemporary situations in order for healthy conversation or great positions always to be taken — human hubris being what it is. As such, “Truth” may suffer. Having said this, it is important for each to remain in dialogue with the other so that all of us might move closer to vs. further from the will of God in matters of faith and practice. James R. Black, interim pastor Arlington Church Jacksonville, Fla. |
Editor’s Note, November 7, 2008: As Presbyterians consider presbytery action on G-6.0106b, the OUTLOOK makes this statement of clarification: Mike Loudon’s essay, “Let the PUP Report Work” (pub. Nov. 3, 2008), states that that report “called for the retention of the present ordination standards. …” To be exact, the report “encourage[d] the 217th General Assembly (2006) to approve” no changes “…that would have the effect of changing denominational policy on any of the major issues in the task force’s report. …” The rationale of the report explains, “In order to assess whether the ways forward we have proposed are effective in promoting peace, unity, and purity, it seems advisable to all members of the task force, whatever their personal positions on issues, that the task force’s recommendations be considered and weighed in a spirit of discernment, and that they also be given an opportunity to work. … We believe it would create confusion and further conflict to attempt to make major constitutional changes to section G-6.0106 or on other controversial issues before the church has reacquainted itself with the time-tested principles of the proposed authoritative interpretation” (p. 43). The report did not express any opinion regarding possible policy changes that might be considered by subsequent General Assemblies. Re: Loudon/Wheeler Forum (pub. Nov. 3, 2008) Mike Loudon (“Let the PUP Report work,”) urges a return to pre-G-60106b “scruple” days. But that was before homosexual ordination became an issue. To insure conformity to “fidelity and chastity,” this escape hatch for objectors was removed. Mike thinks it should be restored as a means of achieving Peace, Unity, and Purity. Has PUP accomplished these elusive ideals? Letters to the Outlook indicate otherwise. But the issue that concerns me is not procedure but theology. What should determine belief and practice, Scripture or culture? Instead of critiquing culture in the light of Scripture, Barbara Wheeler [“Why not replace (or retain) G-6.0106b] and her ilk seem to be reinterpreting Scripture to support unbiblical cultural norms. That is why I believe the presbyteries should vote to retain the thrice-affirmed ordination standards of G-60106b. Joe Hopkins
New Wilmington, Pa.
Thanks to Mike Loudon for his excellent article, which raises a question: During the 250 years that scrupling was allowed, were there any recorded instances in which a minister was ordained after scrupling a requirement of personal conduct? None is given in the rationale supporting Recommendation 5 of the PUP report. Also, The Report of the Special Committee on Historic Principles, Conscience, and Church Government Minutes, 1983, pp. 141-58) indicates that such scrupling was not permitted: (1) “The situation regarding the requirements and prohibitions of the Form of Government is different; because polity often requires compliance in behavior, whereas the confessional standards may not.” Ibid., p. 155) (2) “The fact that the church permits diversity of theological beliefs but in many areas requires uniformity of practice does not exalt polity over theology.” Ibid., p. 156) (3) “Therefore freedom of conscience is not abridged by the requirements of our Constitution.” Ibid., p.158). Going still further back, The Westminster Confession states that the purpose of freedom of conscience is destroyed by those who use it to practice any sin. (6.110) This is an important question of fact, because the PUP authoritative interpretation (AI), the 2008 AI that nullified the 1978 and 79 interpretations, and the 2008 AI that attempts to override the Bush decision, are all based on it. Warren Herron Atlanta, Ga. |
Each proposed amendment carries the following preface: "The 218th General Assembly directed the Stated Clerk to send the following proposed amendment to the presbyteries for their affirmative or negative votes." It is therefore the constitutional responsibility of presbyteries to VOTE on the proposed amendments. Deciding to take "no action" has the same effect as a "no" vote — but it lacks the courage and legitimacy of an actual vote. It disrespects the work of our GA commissioners to refuse to act on items properly sent to the presbyteries. It does not matter whether we agree or not. It does not matter whether we are tired of the issue or not. The business has been placed before us, and we are duty-bound to act. How ironic is it that anyone could dare to suggest that we should handle a proposed amendment dealing with ordination vows by failing to honor our own ordination vow to abide by the polity of the church? "No action" is not an honorable option. Vote with respect for all opinions. Vote with the love of God in your heart and with the Spirit guiding you. But vote yes or vote no — that is our duty. Richard Hong
Englewood, N.J. |
|
Letters to the Editor
|
|
Written by Ed Koster, stated clerk Presbytery of Detroit
|
|
Friday, 07 November 2008 15:29 |
|
| | |
I deeply appreciate Barbara Wheeler’s article … regarding the proposal to amend G-6.0106b, "Why not replace (or retain) G-6.0106b?"
In it she recommends against approval because it may harm the church and probably will not succeed in accomplishing what is sought. She recommends this in spite of the fact that she believes G-6.0106b is wrong. That this argument comes from a person dedicated so strongly to ordination of non-celibate gays and lesbians is a credit to her.
Ms. Wheeler suggests not voting for Amendment B as a way of expressing the concerns she raises. The effect of this would be to report to the General Assembly that no action has been taken, effectively a vote against it. Robert’s Rules does not allow a motion to take no action, but it can be accomplished by a motion to “postpone indefinitely” when Amendment B is presented for approval. This motion allows full debate, discussion, and a vote on the matter, without having to say yes or no. If the motion is defeated, a presbytery can proceed to vote yea or nay.
I am particularly appreciative of Ms Wheeler’s rationale for supporting the ordination of non-celibate gays and lesbians. She eschews the standard arguments in favor — secular principles of equality and theological arguments for justice — instead grounding her stand on her interpretation of the Reformed Tradition’s understanding of God, who would not prohibit non-celibate gays and lesbians from: love and companionship; sealing a covenant between two persons with sexual intimacy; responding to God’s call to discipleship and social responsibility in a family relationship; seeking faithfulness to a partner and commitment to children. It is a persuasive argument.
What Ms Wheeler seems to lift up is a hope that her goal of full acceptance of LGBT persons can be furthered by deep and faithful discussions based on Biblical teachings, freedom, love, and open dialogue. I do too. Which makes me curious why Ms. Wheeler has not taken a step that might really help to accomplish the beginning of a process that could be fruitful.
In her definition of what God seeks, she uses terms like love, companionship, sealing a covenant, discipleship, faithfulness to a partner. In effect, she says these describe what God wishes. Perhaps she would be willing to take these concepts and make them prescriptive, rather than merely descriptive.
If she, as a major voice in the movement for the ordination of non-celibate gays and lesbians, would declare that those who seek to be ordained must seal a covenant, not with sexual love but with a public declaration before God and the church, a covenant that would call the couple to discipleship, social responsibility, and fidelity to the partner, then this may form a core agreement that can be acceptable to all parties. Indeed, we expect these from those who marry.
This may open an opportunity to begin dialogue, for it could form a common ground on which to base discussion. Without it, the freedom for sexual intimacy she seeks has no limits, no commitment to faithfulness and permanence, or call to service that is expected of those in a marriage. In effect, the covenant she describes is sealed only by sexual intimacy, a flimsy bond. The ancient rule of the church is simple: no fornication, no adultery. Approving same-sex intimacy for gays and lesbians without limits would approve it also for heterosexual intimacy, something repugnant to a large portion of the church.
Such an advocacy will not, of course, resolve the matter. But it may be enough to encourage many to engage in the kind of discussion she seeks, and which I do as well. Moreover, it is a first step that can be taken unilaterally. She could do it herself, on her own initiative. Ed Koster, stated clerk Presbytery of Detroit Detroit, Mich. |
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 |
Of course, let's not forget what Calvin would have said about our sexuality debate. The historical Calvin was so puritanical, he even condemned excessive lust for one's own wife. It's not that Calvin never considered today's "progressive" sexuality - he explicitly rejected it.
Speaking as a lone Calvinist at a staunchly Lutheran (LCMS) institution, it is obvious to me that our professed adherence to Calvin is only window dressing by comparison. For my colleagues here, "What would Luther say?" is a boundary it is almost impossible to cross.
Ph.D. student, Concordia Seminary |
This was a very interesting article. Someplace I read a statistic that the Christian population was 20% of Palestine in 1947 and is down to less than 2% today. Can anyone confirm or refute those numbers? Thanking you in advance for any feedback. Nigel Nicholson Havre de Grace, Md. Victor Makari, Middle East Coordinator of Mission for the PC(USA), responds: In an April 2008 lecture by Professor Bernard Sabella of Bethlehem University (he has a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Virginia), he has pointed out that today's Christian population in the Palestinian territories is about 1.2% and in Israel proper about 1.7%. In pre-1948, the Christian population of Palestine was about 18%. Sabella cites, among his sources, George Kossaibi's chapter "Demographic Characteristics of the Arab Palestinian People" in the book The Sociology of the Palestinians by Khalil Nakhleh and Elia Zureik (published in London by Croom Helm, in 1980; and a review of a survey conducted in 2006 by Sabella himself that was titled "Palestinian Christians: Historical and Demographic Developments ..." |
|
Letters to the Editor
|
|
Written by Darren Belajac
|
|
Tuesday, 04 November 2008 15:42 |
|
While I agree with Roger Gench's repudiation of "identity politics" in America (celebrity culture permeating America's most "hallowed" institutions), I have to say that the rest of his article is theologically and biblically inept. Before addressing the positive claims of Gench, it should be noted that his appraisal (or lack thereof) of the 2008 presidential campaign seems quite out of touch, given the ubiquity of pseudo-religious language on the part of both candidates. This renders his question of whether it should matter what faith a candidate has as quite unrealistic. The fact is it does matter. The religion of Americanism, besides any other affirmations about Christianity, is always close to the lips of presidents. |
Reader Response : Obama has already had violent threats against his life, and will certainly have more if elected. He must have gone into this election knowing that, and willing to take that risk. Compared to this reality, Halloween silliness pales in importance. The perpetrators may still repent, even if that takes years from now. But such is the hope held out to us all for a better future. I do disagree with the claim of "a grotesque throwback to a time when such brutality could be threatened with impunity." In far too much of the world and even in the US, threats can be made and carried out with impunity. I hope we keep working towards that better day. Response By : David Robbins - November 3, 2008 |
Reader Response : In an otherwise excellent article, Chris Iosso writes, "The Assembly spoke well in 2004, calling for an orderly path to citizenship and recognizing the economic factors that push countries to export their own citizens." Unfortunately, this mis-statement furthers the Lou Dobbs fostered myth that governments such as Mexico are somehow "exporting" their own people. In fact, most Mexicans who leave Mexico do so sadly and with heavy hearts. They leave their families and communities because they have no choice, coming to the US in hopes of making money, much of which they ship home to their families. Since these folks tend to be excellent workers and entrepreneurs, the Mexican government wishes they could stay at home and work. Let us be clear: Mexico and other nations don't export their workers to us. They lose them to us. As a result, we are better off; the nations from whence they come are worse off. Response By : john - October 29, 2008 |
The 2008 College Outlook Guide … epitomizes the Reformation call to "Be Reformed, yet Always Reforming." The content is theologically meaty. God has many doorways into the human heart, but His favorite is an inquiring, alert mind. Our Presbyterian-related schools open this entryway. The new look using glossy paper delights readers. The mix of informative copy and imaginative graphics appeal to the eye and aim at the heart of Godly matters. Jack R. Van Ens Arvada, Colo. |
|
All throughout the years, Christian education (and) spiritual formation have been important parts of the Presbyterian Church. Persons such as myself have felt a call to the ministry of education in the church. We have studied, prepared, and become Certified Christian educators. Now more than ever there is a need for those who have the calling and the expertise to help those who are seeking to know how the Christian faith and a 21st century world connect. I agree wholeheartedly with what Tom Gillespie, former president of Princeton Theological Seminary (and isn't this wonderful -- teacher of a second-grade Sunday school class!) is quoted as saying on page 7 of the October 27 issue of the OUTLOOK: "Without strategic thinking and discipleship tools such as curriculum, 'there's not going to be any stewardship, there's not going to be any mission. ... There's more to governance than balancing a budget. We need to be about our Father's business in a very serious way here.'" How are we different from the secular world? When will churches learn that they are a community of faith. They need to get on their knees and pray about doing the Father's business. Marian Bauer, DCE Westminster Church Madison, Wis. |
It is evident that the article … by David Dawson re: rehabilitating the word missionary has opened up a timely debate. The response of John Kuckuk (see OUTLOOK letters, Oct. 6 issue) … calls for a further response. The surge toward independence that swept through the nations of the Third World in the 1960s and 70s forced all mission-sending agencies to re-examine the way that they carried out Christian mission. Many of the challenges ,,, initiated were very appropriate and effective. However, there were cases where such changes were adopted by mission boards far from the scene and were superimposed on Third World churches (that) were not prepared for such changes. The results at times were unfortunate and indeed disastrous. The change in the title missionary to fraternal worker was only one such change for which many Third World churches were ill prepared. While it may have sounded good to us, for the partner churches it connoted a confusion of roles and a dulling of the thrust of mission. Far more serious were such changes as the following: · The dumping of responsibility for all educational and medical work on the partner churches, which were ill prepared to accept and undertake such responsibility. · The sudden decrease in mission involvement in those nations where the Protestant Christian witness had been carried out primarily by American Presbyterians. Those partner churches came to feel that they had been abandoned by their Presbyterian partners. · The disillusionment of those who had spent their careers in mission service and were suddenly terminated without due cause, thus creating a negative response to mission in the home church. Needless to say, we have learned much as we have sought to apply new policies and strategies to the new era of genuine “partnership in mission.” However, I think that we need to be realistic as we study mission history over the past several decades to see that some of the changes made at that critical turning point … may not have been wise and in turn need to be re-examined. James Cogswell Black Mountain, N.C. |
Re: Romans 7 politics (pub. Oct. 6, 2008) (This) issue just arrived in today’s mail, and I want to thank you for your editorial, which spoke the truth all of us — including myself — needed to hear. And yes, we do need to be “a bit less Romans 7.” Ben Bateman Hot Springs, Ark.
|
The article … about the effect of Hurricane Ike does give a picture of the real devastation to the area along the coast of East Texas or its impact upon the people. Areas on Boliver Peninsula show block after block of concrete slabs. A few houses are seen here and there, but most people have nothing left. Along with the loss of houses is the loss of businesses so some people not only have lost their homes but their jobs as well. I live about 60 miles north of the Gulf. While many of us fared well, trees have fallen on house and made them uninhabitable. The are as a whole will be a long time recovering from Ike. |
The report from Leslie Scanlon estimating damage in New Covenant (Presbytery) was correct based on the information we received during the first days post Ike. Unfortunately it is now a far more difficult picture. … Churches (that) originally reported little damage like First Galveston and First Orange found a very different picture once they got into their buildings to find not only significant flood damage, but significant mold as well. First Orange was just completing repairs to their historic building caused by Hurricane Rita and has welcomed a new pastor to a significantly damaged building and a devastated community. Emmanuel in Galveston had six feet of water in the building. The interior of West Isle has had to be gutted. Several other churches further inland have experienced major roof damage that led to water damage caused by rain. The article is on target about the resilience of folks. Neighbor is reaching out to neighbor and we have volunteers on the ground. People know how much worse it could have been. We've gathered for special services of healing and wholeness in two of the most affected areas. Where the devastation really gets significant is in the communities. Thousands of people have become homeless overnight. Work crews will be descending on Sabine Pass near the La. state line this weekend. Where there was once a thriving community, literally the only structures left are the school and the athletic complex. There is nothing left to dig out — it’s a matter of clearing brush and debris so that shelters can be brought in. Please encourage your readers to pray for the people of coastal Texas and Louisiana. PDA (Presbyterian Disaster Assistance) is doing a wonderful job of helping us prepare for long-term recovery efforts. Updates are available on our presbytery Web site http://www.pbyofnewcovenant.org/sections/home.html and volunteer work crews are being scheduled through the PDA call center at 1-866-732-6121. Mary Marcotte
Associate General Presbyter for Discipleship and Leadership Development
Presbytery of New Covenant
Houston, Texas |
Reader Response : Kirk has declared an appeal (Tulsa World Newspaper) 20 Day stay of Order. Response By : Jim Welch - Bartlesville , OK - September 9, 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 : 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 : 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? Response By : Lynn Calhoun - September 28, 2008 |
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 : 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 Response By : Readers Feedback - October 7, 2008 |
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 Response By : Readers Feedback - October 7, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
|
| Join Our News Alerts Mailing List |
|
|
|
