Comments for On Unity: Jesus Christ, The Hope of the Church at http://pres-outlook.net , comment 1 to 7 out of 7 comments http://pres-outlook.net Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:34:23 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/editorials/6090.html#comment-3658 Note to Carol Schaef: The things you heard cannot be condoned. You also wrote that to 'bring into this situation inflammatory inserts into bulletins, us/against them mentality, many very negative situations coming out of church votes (I have talked personally with many of them), actively preventing other opinions from being heard, then it has nothing to do with beliefs and everything to do with church politics.' So I would ask you - what some in the PCUSA would refer to as a 'loyalist' - what do you do with Jack Rogers' us-against-them mentality regarding conservatives? What do you do with Davis Perkins' published inflammatory attack on the Confessing Church movement? What do you do with Louisville lawyers who recommend pre-emptive legal strikes against churches and lying to judges to gain advantage in property disputes? Again, I don't excuse the kind of excesses you cited. Having themselves been the targets of PCUSA officials' hate-mongering tactics, NWAC supporters should know how to turn the other cheek. - Steve Jones Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/editorials/6090.html#comment-3632 The following message was submitted from a Reader Feedback form on November 12, 2007 It is interesting to read Calvin being quoted to argue against a separation from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). It is understandable that modern Presbyterians would seek guidance from him. He is the chief formulator of Presbyterianism. Additionally, he opposed divisions in the church and advocated and worked for Christian unity. I am not sure, however, it is possible to quote Calvin in an argument against a division in the Presbyterian Church (USA) without distorting his ecclesiology. He would not castigate the current separation as a questionable act of Christian faithfulness, because he would not call a departure from one part of the universal church to join its other parts as "the denial of God and Christ." Calvin expressed the phrase quoted in the article and elsewhere as he laid groundwork in a polemic to repudiate the same claim by the Roman church. To characterize a break with a particular denomination as "th! e denial of God and Christ," one has to assume that the same denomination is the one and only church on earth. In other words, if a denomination were or could be the one church of God, then any separation from that church would be a breach of unity. Calvin vehemently argued against such a unity, and in fact, to remain in such church would be to deny God. For Calvin the church must have its unity in the headship of Christ. The unity is invisible and thus not organizational. With this thesis he argued against the concept of the Roman church where the church was defined as the society of the faithful under the headship of the Pope. Its unity is organizational and therefore visible, although an institutional feature has never been discussed as attributes or marks of the church. The Reformation thesis of the church helps introduce numerous expressions of the church headed by Christ. Their commitment to hold firm in "sound doctrines and brotherly lov! e" with those of Scriptural faith is grounded nowhere else than in t he saving Lordship of Jesus Christ as their Head. They neither do nor can have any organizational, and thus visible, unity among them. Historically and materially the WCC is an example of this reality. The church is by no means one denomination. Certainly the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is the church of God--the article "the," not "a," is used here to be in line with Calvin's theology. But to reverse the reasoning is both presumptuous and preposterous. A Presbyterian is neither to say nor to assume that the church of Christ is the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). The accusations and counter-accusations among the Presbyterians remind me of Calvin's commentary on the First Corinthians 1:10. He wrote: "Let us therefore take note that there is nothing more out of keeping for Christians than their being divided from each other. For the most important principle of our religion is this, that we be in concord among ourselves. Moreover, on this ! agreement the safety of the Church rests and depends." If reasons and guilt for the current separation are identifiable, the unfaithfulness lies on both sides. Therefore, let us not confuse a loyalty to a single denomination with Christian faithfulness to the Head of the church. We are mature enough in an age of ecumenism or post-ecumenism to recognize our brothers and sisters at home and abroad so long as they belong to any society headed by Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. - Inkyu Park Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/editorials/6090.html#comment-3613 In response to Matt Ferguson: Thanks for your comments. I believe it is possible that you and others may not have heard the comments that were referred to. Consider that just because you have not heard it, this does not mean it is not true. The New Wineskins Initiative uses my church (Memorial Park Church in Allison Park, PA) as its operating address. Many (most) things regarding NWA emanate from my church. Because of this I have heard many more NWA comments then some people. Actually the "lukewarm Laodiceans" comment was very tame and in my view used to preserve a positive message. Here is the reality of some of the comments I have heard: 1) at a sermon at my church following my church's vote to leave the denomination this was said: 'the PCUSA is going to hell along with its pastors' 2) 'if you don't like it that we are leaving the denomination, then just get out' 3) 'We're going to keep talking to all the nearby churches to encourage them to leave the PCUSA!' (why not just leave them alone) 4) 'The PCUSA is like Baal' 5) Some comments and situations have been so profoundly offensive I cannot write about them here. 6)The most recent comment at the convocation (in one of their videos): 'NWA is worth dying for' with no further explanation. Frightening. Maybe it means 'dying to oneself' or 'following Christ to the cross' but no one knows this since it wasn't explained. In this day and age, dying for a religion reminds me of flying planes into buildings and suicidal bombings. I suspect this was not the intention but it smacks of a group of people that are in an isolated movement. I am glad to see people speaking out to support the PCUSA. I have networked with many people over the past three months and many people are supportive of the PCUSA and are unhappy with NWA but are afraid to speak out about this. No, the PCUSA isn't perfect. No denomination is. Actually there are a lot of very exciting things going on in NWA. If it were just about their views, their worship and following God and scripture, I would support them completely. But bring into this situation inflammatory inserts into bulletins, us/against them mentality, many very negative situations coming out of church votes (I have talked personally with many of them), actively preventing other opinions from being heard, then it has nothing to do with beliefs and everything to do with church politics. - Carol Schaef Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/editorials/6090.html#comment-3606 Dr. Achtemeier and Dr. Purves make the following statement: 'We who remain affiliated with the denomination are often portrayed by separation-minded colleagues as sell-outs, as compromisers, as "lukewarm Laodiceans" who have sacrificed theological and biblical integrity for the sake of unity-at-any-price.' I am part of those within the New Wineskins Association crafting a way of staying faithfully within the PCUSA. I have never heard anyone make such a comment toward me or others who are remaining within the PCUSA. I do know those who clearly sense God's leading to have their community of faith transfer to another part of God's family are tired of the false charges of schism, etc. by folks like the authors of this letter. Do they not recognize other Reformed communities as part of the Body of Christ? If so, then how can moving from one part to another schism? If not, then make their case against those Reformed communities and seek to bring correction to them. Since God's people are all part of the Body of Christ, regardless of a particular denominational affiliation (or even lack thereof), New Wineskins recognized one can remain faithful within a particular denomination if it is where God is calling you. This is why New Wineskins seeks to be trans-denominational. A local community of faith can remain part of any number of Reformed denominations, associations, or even be independent of such things and be part of New Wineskins. If the authors of this letter, and many others in our denomination who make similar charges against those moving their affiliation within the Body, would have a more complete view of the Church as a whole perhaps we could get beyond much of these repetitive accusations. We recently had a fine family of the community of faith where I serve God as pastor ask for a transfer of membership to another community of faith where they feel God is calling them at this time. Yes, we had a discussion to make sure things were fine between us and them (it was and is) and then we joyfully honored their request because they are seeking to be faithful to the One true God we all serve. We gave them words of encouragment and we still see one another as part of God's family. A church in a neighboring community holds a blessing ceremony to send forth members who feel led by God to move their membership to another church. Can you imagine what those outside the church would think if we in the PCUSA did the same for those churches who feel called to another denomination instead of all this clutching, grabbing, etc.? Those outside the church might look at us and think, "See how they love one another even when they disagree!" May it be so and may our leaders start leading the way toward that. - Matt Ferguson Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/editorials/6090.html#comment-3603 I appreciate the emphasis that Jesus is the Lord and Head of the Church. However, I am not sure you are seeing the whole church that Jesus is Lord over. It sounds like you are telling us that the PCUSA is the only Church Jesus is Lord over. I am sure it is possible to leave the denomination and still trust in the Lordship of Jesus over His Church. It is unfair to suggest that those leaving are not trusting in the Lordship of Jesus but only in some standard of their own holiness or theological conviction. It sounds like you are defining the Lordship of Jesus only within the framework of a Reformed Theological point of view. Are you suggesting that there is not a church outside of the church birthed by the Reformation? I believe Jesus is Lord over the whole church as it is expressed worldwide. Our holiness or theology, right or wrong, does not change the fact that Jesus is the Lord and Head of the Church. - kavin rossman Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/editorials/6090.html#comment-3600 This article came at just the right time for me. I have enormous respect for both of these individuals,and what they said came at the very time I was having some internal struggles as to exactly where I was in my faith-journey. It strengthens my sense that the PC(USA) is where I belong. Thanks, Mark and Andrew, for your encouragement when it was sorely needed. - Fred Anderson Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.net/opinion/editorials/6090.html#comment-3601 Academic verbosity sometimes masquerades as reason. Allow me to highlight one point that Mark and Andrew have buried in their diatribe (and here I am quoting): '...should we decide {angrily} to break fellowship with a church where the possibility (because of Christ's presence) of faithful preaching and sacramental ministry remains intact and to a certain extent in effect.' Am I to understand that these two professors are proclaiming from their ivy covered towers that -- gee golly -- as long as the possibility exists that we can preach faithfully -- that the mere possibility is sufficient? And, to further seek clarification, is it not possible that in fact there is a question for reasonable believers about Christ's presence in an organization which can not (or will not) confess him as the only way? It is difficult for me to believe that these two professors intended to cast the PC USA as the Church of Christ in its entirety. This opinion reeks of irony. Calvin separated from the church of his day and I suspect he would find the PCUSA in its current state of theological syncretism appalling. Rev. Jim Yearsley, Tampa Fl - James Yearsley Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:00:00 +0100