|
Opinion
|
Editorials
|
|
Written by Jack Haberer, Outlook Editor
|
|
Sunday, 12 October 2008 19:31 |
|
As Michael Lindvall reminds us in this week’s Benedictory column, history should be a “distant mirror” that helps us see ourselves and our times more accurately. This week’s issue of the Outlook turns our eyes to what may be the clearest mirror into which we Presbyterians are inclined to gaze: the life and writings of John Calvin. |
|
Your recent editorial … mentioned a radical departure taken by the most recent General Assembly in its vote that ordination candidates no longer will need to be able to read Biblical Hebrew or Greek. According to the newly approved approach, "The demonstration of a working knowledge or Hebrew and/or Greek will no longer be required in order to complete the examination successfully" and a "faithful interpretation" rather than "the principal meaning" will now be sufficient. Now that the Biblical exegesis ordination examination will no longer require knowledge of the original languages, many seminary students who go on to serve congregations may not even study Hebrew or Greek. It is a serious loss to the people we seek to serve when our clergy cannot read, study, and teach the Bible in its original languages. For centuries we have prided ourselves in the Reformed tradition on being "people of the Book," but now perhaps we should refer to ourselves as "people of the paraphrase" or "people of the Cliffs Notes." Nelle McCorkle Bordeaux Savannah, Ga. |
Dear Editor, I wasn't sure what to make of last issue's cover (9/29/2008). Is the pastor on the left or the right? The elderly Caucasian man on the left could fit two stereotypical images, that of a pastor or that of an average PC(USA) member. On the right we have what appears to be a non-Caucasian mother (apparently her daughter is by her side). It's hard to tell who is giving thanks and who is receiving thanks. Either way, the image either seems to be playing into sterotypes or trying to flip them around. I hope it's the latter, as a symbol for the changing face of the church. Evans Presley-McGowan MDiv. Middler San Anselmo, CA
|
|
Editorials
|
|
Written by Jack Haberer, Outlook Editor
|
|
Sunday, 05 October 2008 00:00 |
|
“I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate” (Romans 7:15). If ever there were a living example of the Romans 7 dilemma, it is parading before us daily on the campaign trail. Two great men, both aspiring to be the 44th president of the United States, are behaving in ways that flat-out contradict so much of what they have promoted throughout their careers. |
|
Guest Commentary
|
|
Written by Tom Ehrich
|
|
Sunday, 05 October 2008 00:00 |
|
(RNS) NEW YORK — Here in America’s financial capital, Sunday (Sept. 14) was normal in most respects. Streets were filled with shoppers, parks with strollers and picnickers, and homes with people watching the Jets lose and the Giants win. But our always-on communications brought a steady stream of sobering news from emergency talks on Wall Street. |
I appreciate Scott Sunquist’s challenge to theological education. Everything he writes rings true to this middle-aged parson educated in the early 1980s. Is there a seminary or a program to help retool old guys like me? I was educated in a Christendom model: spend 20 hours researching and preparing a good sermon, get a catchy topic for the sign out front, and everything else will take care of itself. Even then I suspected there was more involved, but until at least the early 1990s I could still count on people showing up for Sunday School or special church events or a midweek Bible study. One 15-minute sermon a week does not come close to competing with CSI, People, Facebook, high school sports, and all the other influences that shape their understanding of the world, and most North American Protestants will not show up for anything other than that Sunday morning sermon. The Christians I have known do not want to talk about their life in Jesus in the produce aisle at the grocery store or at their daughters’ volleyball game. Yet I recognize the sincere desire to be disciples. When Youth Connection starts on a Bible story, we often do not have time to play a silly game, because the young people are so into God. Session members participate in serious discussion about faith during our monthly meetings and do not act as though it’s a waste of time. Christians want to be disciples, and want me to help them be disciples. So I hope that our seminaries can not only be converted to help new pastors serve the church of the twenty-first century, but also help retool us older ones who do not want simply to coast into retirement, but make disciples as well.
Robert A. Keefer, pastor Westminster Church Clarinda, Iowa |
|
Editorials
|
|
Written by Jack Haberer, Outlook Editor
|
|
Sunday, 28 September 2008 00:00 |
|
October: Pastor Appreciation Month. Just the kind of thing Hallmark would invent to sell more cards. |
I have a very simple question. Why would a candidate for the ministry who wants to serve as a pastor in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) not attend one of our own denominational seminaries? It only seems reasonable to me that if one goes to a nondenominational seminary he/she must want to serve in a nondenominational church. I think we absorb the spirit of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) by receiving our theological education in our own seminaries. Otherwise, why should we have these seminaries? I remember years ago in a Florida presbytery meeting a young man coming before us seeking ordination in our denomination. He was a graduate of a nondenominational seminary. Many ministers questioned his commitment to our denomination. He firmly declared that he would be loyal. We ordained him and gave him the responsibility of serving a new church. The venture was highly successful. However, in a few years he resigned from our denomination and took the church out with him. So much for loyalty. He went on to be an effective minister but not a Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) minister. There are other stories similar to this, which I believe has led to the growth of other Presbyterian denominations. Would it have been different had those ministers been graduates of our own seminaries? Of course we will never know. But what we do know is that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A>) has excellent seminaries. I hope our church sessions will encourage those Christians who feel called to the ministry to receive their education in one of them. D.C. Bartges Midlothian, Va.a
|
My friends in the Presbytery of Detroit know that I seldom agree with anything wholeheartedly, but “Save a tree. Kill an assembly.” sounds so real and true I thoroughly agree. I believe that people are less likely to read, comment upon, and study pages that appear on the internet and that it’s affecting the quality of participation at General Assembly deeply disturbs me. The work is simply too important to entrust to people who have failed to do their required homework. By the way, I have been a GA commissioner twice so I know and tried to live up to the preparation expectation. For those who made copies of their GA reports, I commend them but the copies made by individuals are more costly to the environment than the former newsprint-quality pages of GA notebooks. I suspect that the same phenomenon is true in presbyteries like Detroit that now expect commissioners to make their own copies or pay an annual fee for distribution and copies. Personally, were it not for the laser printer in our church office and an able administrator who regularly makes our packets, I would not have the hard copies because it takes too long on an ordinary printer. Also, while the presbytery sends out pages copied front and back, our copies are one-sided, thus using twice as much paper. None of us long to read the detail of any reports but we are more likely to do it when the actual paper crosses our desks. Thank you for drawing attention to the unintended consequences of an action that initially sounded good to me! Is an overture needed to change our system? Sent by regular mail. Gretchen Denton, interim pastor St. Paul’s Church Livonia, Mich. |
|
Letters to the Editor
|
|
Written by Bill Klemm
|
|
Monday, 22 September 2008 00:00 |
|
The recent vote of the 218th General Assembly has the effect of calling for a vote of Presbyterians on amending our church constitution to allow ordination of practicing homosexuals, whether they be deacons, elders, or pastors. |
|
Editorials
|
|
Written by Jack Haberer, Outlook Editor
|
|
Sunday, 21 September 2008 00:00 |
|
Did you notice, in the Sept. 1 edition of the Outlook, the curious juxtaposition of our extolling the Presbyterian way of life, while half the news section focused on the Anglican way of life? No, I wouldn’t trade our elders and deacons for their bishops. But those bishops were making news. |
As a Commissioner to the General Assembly in San Jose I believe there is another issue that needs to be addressed. It is the issue of understanding the context of many of the issues coming before the General Assembly. While I thought I was informed, I realized quickly that some issues have been around for quite a while. While it is easy to change the General Assembly Council’s name by adding Mission, it is not easy to understand the evolution of this body. I felt fortunate to be assigned to a committee where Linda Valentine and others from the Council did a thorough presentation. The issue of the Presbyterian Men not being represented on the GAMC was not as clear.
I think the other area where improvement can be made is understanding the procedure of General Assembly and its referral system. For example the Belhar Confession was referred for further study. Why delay this matter after a committee has studied the document already? I would have thought it could have been sent to the presbyteries for their action.
I came to G.A. excited by the possibilities of the nFOG document. While nFOG was never discussed in my presbytery, I was personally excited by the opportunity to streamline the Book of Order. I left the G.A. feeling like a Committee discussed nFOG, but then ask that it be referred.
I am thankful for The Presbyterian Outlook coverage of the G.A. this spring. The articles became my source of understanding many of the issues that were coming to the General Assembly. And I have found the issues since G.A. have continued to inform myself and the Church, if we but read and learn.
Thomas D. Woodward, H.R.
Nashua, N.H.
|
|
Editorials
|
|
Written by Jack Haberer, Outlook Editor
|
|
Sunday, 14 September 2008 22:23 |
|
Seminaries: the schools you hate to love. Most pastors deeply appreciate their respective theological alma maters (see report on p. 10). They thank God for the superior scholarship, for their favorite faculty-mentors’ attentiveness, and for the community spirit they experienced. |
|
|
Letters to the Editor
|
|
Written by DAVID RATCLIFF, moderator Presbyteries’ Cooperative Committee on Examinations for Candidates
|
|
Friday, 12 September 2008 20:41 |
|
| | |
In the editorial for the Outlook’s annual Theological Education Issue, the editor raised questions about changes that were recently made in the Open Book Bible Exegesis ordination examinations. Similar questions have been raised by others in recent weeks. These concerns point to the important role the examinations play in the larger preparation for ministry process. The Presbyteries’ Cooperative Committee on Examinations for Candidates (PCCEC) appreciates the opportunity to respond to concerns and to clarify steps that are being taken to make the examinations effective tools in helping discern a candidate’s readiness for ministry.We have posted to our Web site (www.pcusa.org/exams) information explaining the history, rationale, and purposes of these changes. Here we would like to emphasize two points. First, all candidates continue to be required to answer questions dealing with the assigned texts in the original Greek or Hebrew languages, and those answers will factor into the overall evaluation of the examination. Second, in evaluating whether a candidate presents “a faithful interpretation,” readers will be assessing whether it is consistent with the facts about the text’s wording, the realities concerning the text’s historical, social, canonical, and theological contexts, and so forth. We appreciate the questions being raised. The preparation of candidates for ministry of Word and Sacrament is a vital process undertaken by the whole church. It is the aim of PCCEC to be a valued contributor to that process. DAVID RATCLIFF, moderator Presbyteries’ Cooperative Committee on Examinations for Candidates |
Mr. Dawson makes an important point with some unfortunately defective thinking. We agree that since the 1960s Presbyterians have preferred “fraternal worker” to “missionary.” Lest we continue to misunderstand the history he cites, we quote him: Presbyterians are far more influenced in their thinking about missionaries by James Michener’s Hawaii and Barbara Kingsolver’s Poisonwood Bible than they are by mission education provided by the PC(USA). … Maybe we should listen to international partners such as world-renowned missiologist Lamin Sanneh who 20 years ago labeled this lack of nerve “the western missionary guilt complex.” Have missionaries been paternalistic? … Yes (with emphasis)… . (emphasis added). Dawson then tells us that they only did what was culturally right at that time. … He claims that Robert D. Woodberry … considers this a “knee-jerk, emotional, negative reaction to ‘missionary’ ” and calls it “ill-founded.” This strikes me as a reactionary evaluation of our recent past as if we made a big mistake in the 1960s change in terminology. I do not agree! That was an insightful and timely decision in our church to claim the new understandings emerging even then. The new world recognized in 1956 at a meeting in Lake Mohonk, N.Y., that in our western colonial period we did behave paternalistically often. Mr. Dawson agrees, but draws no inference from this fact. The change in name was a public recognition that contributed to the education of Presbyterians about the new age we were rapidly entering. Let us not forget that we had only left American isolationism behind a few years before, and there were well-financed forces working hard in our church to drag us back into that past. Dawson tells us that after 50 years “some of the paradigms to which we cling from that era have not worn well.” I suggest that what has not worn well is the old paradigm that we replaced in 1956 and the years following. We now live in the world which the 1956 conference recognized had already emerged. A new generation of human beings in our mission fields living in a new world needed to be affirmed in their newly emerging humanity. It is, nonetheless, entirely acceptable to rejuvenate the old word “missionary” in 2008. … But in reclaiming this good word, we must not be trapped into the old mode of criticism of those before us who moved us forward by their courageous actions in our behalf. Today, thank God, we have the gift of looking at the past with appreciation for its contributions to our culture and do not any longer find it necessary to throw stones at the object of our present critique. It is surely to be welcomed in the Christian community that interest in “sending” is renewed. We need to expand our communication with communities around the world some of whom come to share our faith. And we should be eternally grateful for those in our recent past who saw our previous errors and took strong and effective steps to correct our approach to “sending.” And we should, though I see no hint of recognition in Mr. Dawson’s discussion, we should be sending missionaries with a much examined and critiqued role in their assignments. … The word “missionary” was indeed offensive fifty years ago. It was clearly and unequivocally paternalistic. It reflected the recent past colonial period. We need not be defensive either about that past — it is past — but we must be careful not to slip back into discredited patterns of mission which with use of the honored language we once held high. … John Kuckuk, H.R. Columbus, Ohio |
I was troubled by a reference in Jana Childers' "Benedictory.” … I quote: "These days as young women and men go off to MBA programs and Silicone Valley jobs and entrepreneurial careers, we are grateful that there are still some who make space in their lives and their psyches to hear God's call." I am offended. How dare we think that people heading for seminary have made more space in their lives to hear God's call.” Doesn't God call some people to MBA programs, Silicone Valley jobs, and entrepreneurial careers? I am a seminary grad and a working pastor of 34 years. That doesn't mean I was listening for God's call better than followers of Jesus who ended up serving in full-time ministry in the wider marketplace. As long as seminaries and church professionals think that only those pursuing "the ministry" through a few sanctified fields of work (namely pastors, missionaries, and church paid educators, generally informed by a seminary education) [are “called”], we will continue to cut ourselves off from the great biblical and Reformation understanding of the priesthood and vocation of all believers. I love being a pastor, but I don't think my particular calling makes me any more open to God's call. God calls followers of Jesus into every field of work and stream of life. Let the Church be free of this two-class system for once and for all. All believers are called to serve the same Lord, whatever the field of work. Institutional seminary thinking has gotten in the way of the Reformation.
Harry J. Heintz, pastor Brunswick Church Troy, N.Y. |
Reading recent letters to the editor reminds me of taking 50 severely emotionally disturbed and behavior disordered children to the zoo which I did quite a number of times during my 25 years of teaching in public schools. Of course, other adults were along, so I had, really, only my class to deal with: about eight children, ages 5-9. 1. The gorilla exhibit has only one male on display at a time, but a number of females and juveniles. This cuts down on the brachiating and reduces the fights.
2. Some pair of animals will be copulating. This is normally not a subject to discuss with young students, but they ask questions, make observations, and, unfortunately have more information about the various human approaches to this activity than one would hope. One of my students got locked out on the front porch when his mother was “entertaining,” but he watched through the window and regaled my male assistant with the excruciating details. Only professional helpers and disordered persons have any interest in other humans’ sexual behavior unless it 1) personally affects them or 2) creates a panic in the streets.
3. Animals do not seem to be particularly interested in the other species of animals unless the other animal is a natural predator. This is not true of humans (not naturally, anyway). We have God and Mother Nature to thank for this. Humans like to make a big deal out of each other’s sexual orientation, race, culture, etc., but we are actually one species.
4. Animals do not have a general pecking order among themselves. An individual group of, say, chickens, might have some “pecking order.” That’s where the term comes from. This is also distinctive behavior as many humans seem to think they have the right answers for ALL humans. Not so.
5. The zoo relies on donations, taxes, admissions, and sales to fund its programs. The zoo is dedicated to preserving animal species, to caring for them appropriately, and to preserving wild habitat so that animals do not go extinct. Human Presbyterians do not seem to be interested in preventing Presbyterians from going extinct. They squabble, call names, insist on their own way (specifically what St. Paul advises against in 1 Corinthians 13). They do not appear to be consulting the “boss” on this job or listening to the “teacher.”
The Presbyterian Silverbacks are brachiating, trying to control others’ sexuality and, actual being as they try to put into place their own reproduction plans (and they aren’t nearly as good as the zookeepers in that department!). They attempt to control others and power is what it’s all about. Please open your mind, your heart, and your spirit to God. See what God really wants. You might be surprised at how liberal God is. Linde Grace White Cincinnati, Ohio |
Susan Andrews … makes a significant observation about the change a number of people are sensing in the spirit/Spirit of the recent General Assembly, calling it “a relational rather than a regulatory culture.” In some of the latest writing of the Old Testament, Leviticus 19:17-18, the Lord gave Moses the key to a relational revitalization of the Decalogue by adding to the familiar prohibitions of Exodus 20 the following: … you shall not hate in your heart anyone of your kin; you shall reprove your neighbor, or you will incur guilt yourself. You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.” In the “church” that was being built in Jerusalem after the Exile, these words stand out, and can apply to the strident voices we have been hearing for some years. We all need to listen to calm and reasoned reproof from our spiritual kin who hold different views of Christ’s way for his Body today. I pray that every corner of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) may see, feel, and share in the movement of the Holiest Spirit. James H. Gailey
Brevard, N.C. |
I appreciated the OUTLOOK publishing the two articles on GA actions regarding Israel and Palestine (August 11), though I was dismayed by the titles of the articles as found on the Contents page (page 3.) Labeling the articles "A Palestinian Take on the General Assembly" and "An Israeli Take on the General Assembly" does a disservice to the readers of the OUTLOOK and to the authors and their attempts to focus on their perception of ways to peace and justice in the Middle East. It sets up the articles in a "partisan" way, which is exactly what (the) Rev. Wimberly says we should avoid! For me, the best way to see the true situation in Israel and Palestine is to go there. The Israel Palestine Mission Network Web site (<http://www.israelpalestinemissionnetwork.org> ) … lists trips that explore many sides of the issue. This year's General Assembly encouraged Presbyterians to take pilgrimages and trips to Israel and Palestine "that are in harmony with our principles"--- especially ones that include visiting with Christian laypeople and clergy and talking to both Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups. These trips also visit the historic sites of the land that is holy to Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Seeing is, indeed, believing! Go and see! Polly Johnson
Louisville, Ky. |
In the spirit of John Wimberly’s call for balance in re: Israel-Palestine issues, here’s some information to provide some balance to his rather one-sided criticism of the GA’s endorsing the Amman Call, which the World Council of Churches has sent to all member churches. The Call came from the “Heads of Churches in Jerusalem.” Is there not a New Testament imperative to take seriously what other members of the Body of Christ say to us? The World Council of Churches recognized that “the children of God — Christian, Muslim, and Jew — are imprisoned in a deepening cycle of violence, humiliation, and despair. The Palestinian Christians from Gaza to Jerusalem and to Nazareth, have called out to their brothers and sisters in Christ with this urgent plea: ‘Enough is enough. No more words without deeds. It is time for action.’" Actions are based upon “the ethical and theological imperative for a Just Peace, the ecumenical imperative for unity in action, the Gospel imperative for costly solidarity.” The Call refers to UN Resolutions and the Geneva Conventions, which the international community recognizes as applicable. Among these is the Palestinian right of return; this is a fundamental right in general international agreements, and is affirmed specifically in the 1948 UN General Assembly Resolution 194, which states in part, in para.11, "resolves that refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return. …" There have been various efforts both formal and informal by Israelis, Palestinians, and others to implement this provision. The Amman Call, in citing this, is not implying, as Mr. Wimberly seems to say, the “end [of] Israel as a Jewish state.” Rather, the Call looks forward to the parties’ working out the implementation of international law, which helps to make states secure. A careful reading of the Call shows that there are at least four places where violence and security needs are directly mentioned and at least eight places where such concerns are implied. The strongest statement is in section 5.8: “That there is no military solution for this conflict. Violence in all its forms cannot be justified whether perpetrated by Israelis or Palestinians.” All of us who are praying and working for a just peace wish that every statement would include something that should also be there; but the General Assembly has done faithful service in responding to this Call from sisters and brothers in Christ in the Holy Land as they pursue “processes of justice and reconciliation, including inter-religious dialogue and cooperation,” and implore us: “Act with us to liberate all peoples of this land from the logic of hatred, mutual rejection and death, so that they see in the other the face and dignity of God.” A balanced approach to the Call can continue by reading the text itself at www.pc-biz.org/Explorer.aspx?id=1429. Len Bjorkman HR Owego, N.Y. |
I write in response to John Wimberly’s article in the August 11 edition of the OUTLOOK. Wimberly equates prophesy with being non-partisan and cites Jesus and Martin Luther King as examples. Was Jesus non-partisan regarding Rome? Although he refused to join the Zealots because he did not believe in violence, he did oppose Roman rule. In the Lord’s prayer, he taught his followers to pray, “hallowed be thy name,” even though Roman state religion required that only Caesar’s name be hallowed. To pray, “Thy kingdom come,” meant praying for an end to the Roman Empire. “Give us this day our daily bread,” critiqued the empire’s (unwillingness) to allow enough bread for everyone. Was Jesus non-partisan? Not at all. Of course, Dr. King did not side with either political party, but he was hardly non-partisan when (he) criticized leaders in one city after another for their racist policies. In a sermon at Riverside Church (N.Y.) on April 4, 1967, in which he opposed the Vietnam War, he said: “This speech is not addressed to Hanoi or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia.” To whom, then, was it addressed? “I come to this platform tonight to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation.” So much for the accusation that Dr. King was non-partisan. Brother Wimberly says that to be prophetic is to “criticize ALL parties.” What criticisms will he publicly make of Israel? Will he oppose its house demolition policy? To date, some 18,000 Palestinian homes have been demolished and the hapless homeowners are fined $15,000 to $20,000 in addition. Will he denounce the wall, which is taking in some of the best land and water resources of the West Bank and in places is 20 kilometers beyond the 1967 border? Will he denounced Israel’s policy of jailing defendants for six months without filing charges and then giving additional six month sentences for years without filing charges? Will he criticize Israeli torture of prisoners? Will he call for the dismantling of the hundreds of roadblocks that have helped destroy the Palestinian economy and care causing massive unemployment and malnutrition? Will he oppose the continuing confiscation of Palestinian land and settlement expansion? Will he speak out against the ethnic cleansing policies of successive Israeli governments? Will he dare call for an end to a brutal occupation? What about the massive suffering inflicted on Gaza? Which Israeli politicians will he support as voices for peace? What criticisms will he make of the Palestinians? Suicide bombers? Firing rockets from Gaza? Corrupt Palestinian leadership? Clearly Israeli sins far outweigh those of the Palestinians. Are we to be silent about such overwhelming injustice and say merely that we must “criticize ALL parties?” In the 47 years I’ve subscribed to the OUTLOOK, this is the worst article you’ve published. Glenn Dickson, pastor Westminster Presbyterian Church United Gainesville, Fla. |
|
Editorials
|
|
Written by Jack Haberer, Outlook Editor
|
|
Sunday, 07 September 2008 22:51 |
|
So where does that road go that’s paved with good intentions? |
|
Editorials
|
|
Written by Jack Haberer, Outlook Editor
|
|
Sunday, 31 August 2008 00:00 |
|
Sister elder, brother deacon, do you get it? Do you understand how radical it is for you to have been ordained to your position of leadership? |
Several months ago there was an article about blind spots in the church. I think Christianity has a blind spot in the response, or lack of response, to war. Jesus gave us definite commands — love your neighbor, do good to those who hate you, return evil for good, turn the other cheek. There is no way you can reconcile war with Christianity. If we follow Bush instead of Jesus that makes us good patriots not Christians. A man cannot have two masters. You can’t please God and mammon too. Someday people will realize that sending our children to kill people they don’t hate, or even know, is not much different from ancient people giving human sacrifices to appease their gods. Allene Goodfellow Wilmington, Del. |
I chose to join the Presbyterians in the early 80s because the PC(USA) appeared more likely to include me whether I grew more liberal or more conservative. Conservatives who noisily call for a denominational split because of their sexual politics clearly declare the progressives are welcoming, inclusive, and open. Like Jesus. Those who cling to dated sexual mores with a tenuous connection to biblical morality (if we followed the Bible, we men could have numerous wives, concubines, and dalliances on the side, including with our female slaves) seem to insist everyone be repressed, dry, and closed up. That’s Augustine. Not Jesus. One recent writer to “Readers’ Outlook” (August 4, 2008) bemoaned the move from “traditional sexual standards.” My brother in the faith of Jesus has it right; these standards are “traditional” not biblical. Those of us who prefer an inclusive denomination (and Church) do not “Advocate” abortion, homosexuality, “anything goes,” “depravity,” or open sexuality. We suggest there are more important issues than others’ sexual behavior. Instead of censuring those who do not fit into our narrow sexual stereotypes, let’s embrace an attitude free of judgment that is consistent with Jesus’ teaching. Let’s open the doors, font, table, and pulpit to all people. everyone. That’s Jesus. Larry Bunnell, pastor Peace Memorial Presbyterian Church Klamath Falls, Ore. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 52 |
|
|
| Join Our News Alerts Mailing List |
|
|
|
