tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29364304.post115785583677887524..comments2023-04-12T04:13:00.415-05:00Comments on Tom's Thoughts: No Voice of ReasonTomGrayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06578393509662485657noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29364304.post-1158345092744842322006-09-15T13:31:00.000-05:002006-09-15T13:31:00.000-05:00I hope this clarifies things between us. God Bless...I hope this clarifies things between us. God Bless the both of you.<BR/><BR/>M.B.<BR/><BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/><BR/>It does for me. Thank you very much, my friend.<BR/><BR/>God be with you and bless you, in all that you do.<BR/><BR/>G.A.C.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29364304.post-1158278057972562962006-09-14T18:54:00.000-05:002006-09-14T18:54:00.000-05:00To "A Friend" and "G.A.C." I am the Anonymous that...To "A Friend" and "G.A.C." I am the Anonymous that signs his initials M.B. and I agree with the two of you fully. I think you may have me confused with one of the other anonymous posters. I'll log in as a blogger as soon as I can figure out how to get my popup blockers and firewalls to cooperate. As the saying goes, there is probably a short between the chair and the computer. <BR/><BR/>Let me be clear that I believe that homosexuality is a sin, and I do not support their ordination. I am also adamant that this is not a one-horse race. We have the duty to speak up against heavy-handed tactics of the PCUSA and to lift up Christ in the process. I was affirming, as you will agree, that we (meaning I and the others voting to leave) understand that we are to love the sinner and hate the sin and that we are anything but hateful, bigoted and intolerant. And to shed light on reference to a blend of tact and candor, the secondary audience was Reformed and Reforming, whom I dealt with rather bluntly in an earlier posting - mostly because of the abrasive nature of the commentary I saw in R and R's postings, which I found insulting to our pastors, our church and to Evangelical Christians generally. Those postings seemed to be saying (deep breath here) "if you want to behave like Christians you can just leave the Presbyterian Church." R and R might as well have said "we don't need your kind". I am still waiting for a reply on that because I hope that I am wrong and that such an attitude does not really exist. There simply are ways to disagree agreeably, and that is what I was reinforcing with my comment. I hope this clarifies things between us. God Bless the both of you. <BR/><BR/>M.B.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29364304.post-1158272691406737702006-09-14T17:24:00.000-05:002006-09-14T17:24:00.000-05:00I must say I appreciate your ability to blend cand...I must say I appreciate your ability to blend candor and tact in making your point. There may be hope in this debate after all. <BR/><BR/>-----<BR/><BR/>I too appreciate this. Your blog entry lays out your points of contention, and is quite polite in doing so. This is the way to at least start a real discussion.<BR/><BR/>-----<BR/><BR/>I think it's just a matter of how you decide to understand Jesus and how to understand the Bible. If you decide that every word in the Bible came directly from God (as the Muslims believe about the<BR/>Qu'ran), then you have to take every word literally -- but probably in it's original language. That's fine, but if you choose that route, you have to take them all -- not just some of them. Did the church advocate "turning the other cheek" after 9/11? <BR/><BR/>-----<BR/><BR/>A few points to discuss here:<BR/>1) Re: "If you decide that every word in the Bible came directly from God . . . then you have to take every word literally . . . but if you choose that route, you have to take them all -- not just some of them."<BR/>-Yes! You do have to take them ALL! We must interpret scripture in light of scripture. We cannot take a piece of it out, go "ooohhh! look what this says", accept that one passage as the ONLY thing God had to say about the subject. God likely had MANY things to say on the subject, and we must consider ALL of them, and then we can come to a conclusion about what that tells us about the passage we were just looking at. (But sorry "anonymous". People have looked, and looked, and looked, and doing this still does not result in the conclusion that Christ advocates homosexual acts, or any out of wedlock, or extramarital sexual activity for that matter). <BR/><BR/>2)Actually, if we're talking about the PCUSA, "turning the other cheek" is EXACTLY what they advocated doing after 9/11. <BR/><BR/>3)Re: "If you decide that every word in the Bible came directly from God (as the Muslims believe about the<BR/>Qu'ran) . . . "<BR/><BR/>Enough with equating orthodox Christians with Muslims! (And this coming from the same contingent who SWEARS that Islam is a "religion of peace"). Within it is always this implication that evangelical Christians are these "dangerous" mind numbed robots who would go out and commit murder "in defense of" Christ or Christianity, and they've "done it before". Oh, yeah - sure. <BR/><BR/>You mean those few wacko, cultic people who's churches had thrown them out for threatening or scaring people and maybe came back and shot some people? Or the ones who had started "churches" of their own, and eventually decided that they were Christ, and then went on to do something murderous or otherwise destructive? Or the random murderous twerp who decided that God would be cool with it if they went ahead and murdered an abortion doctor. <BR/><BR/>Right. Sure, that compares to Islamofascist terrorists, all the death, maiming, raping, and other torture that they've committed. Sure, it's the same thing, on the same scale. <BR/><BR/>What are they smoking?<BR/><BR/>G.A.C.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29364304.post-1158265330822541692006-09-14T15:22:00.000-05:002006-09-14T15:22:00.000-05:00To one of the 36,Obviously the Reverend Gray and t...To one of the 36,<BR/><BR/>Obviously the Reverend Gray and the Kirk fostered an environment that caused/casues people in the pew to think theolgoically -- some would say this is hard, hard work for both the pastors and the congregation. KUDOS to the Kirk and their staff. <BR/><BR/>Obviously the Reverend Gray and the Kirk fostered an environment where people in the pew allow God to be the conscious of how they use their calling to help guide the local church.<BR/><BR/>Obviously this situation has caused much pain in finding that one has a difference in discernment with their pastors and those who they have worshiped and prayed together for years. But I applaud you one in 36 for having the faith to stand for your convictions borne from your own study, reflection and meditation on the Word of God, both written, lived and alive in the working of the Holy Spirit in the lives of men and women, boys and girls. <BR/><BR/>Obviously God will have the final word. But until then let us all be in prayer for the Church Universal that one day we will truly be one flock with One Shepherd, Christ Himself. <BR/><BR/>God bless us all,<BR/><BR/>LydiaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29364304.post-1158263858422268152006-09-14T14:57:00.000-05:002006-09-14T14:57:00.000-05:00Dear "One of the 36";I'm taking a deep breath as I...Dear "One of the 36";<BR/>I'm taking a deep breath as I start to write this because I'm not sure what I want to convey to you will be perceived by you as helpful. I can say it is helpful to me. It is fun to research and find out why the Bible is so very reliable. Lee Strobel(sp?)does an excellent job. And then there's interpretation: Practical hermeneutics is also very fun to help you know you are reading a verse and getting the proper context. When I read your comments, I get the feeling that you believe yourself more than God. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says, 16"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work".<BR/>Don't miss the point about gay ordination. We all know we're all sinners. The issue is if you believe homosexuality is a sin, then why would you want to put an unrepentant sinner in a position of authority, example, and teacher? I would say the same thing for anyone with any type of unrepentant lifestyle, like a pornography user or a gambling addict or a politician! (haha!) <BR/><BR/>A FriendAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29364304.post-1158202935298352462006-09-13T22:02:00.000-05:002006-09-13T22:02:00.000-05:00Anonymous, The debate certainly forces people to t...Anonymous, <BR/><BR/>The debate certainly forces people to think and to begin to understand what they believe, or say they believe. And it is better to be seeking Christ's will in this matter and others than to rely on entrenched beliefs. A person can be right about a thing, but not know why. It is important to question one's beliefs. And I think that is one reason that God gives us the ability to reason. The dialogue, even the controversy, may be His will in order to give us all a chance to lift up Christ in the process. It will also, I believe, bring healing and understanding in the process. And remember, just because we disagree with certain practices and lifestyles does not mean that we are hateful or intolerant. We are still called to love one another. I daresay the idea that the idea of renaming the the Holy Trinity for the sake of political correctness, as well as the perceived heavy-handedness of the PCUSA causes me more consternation than someone's lifestyle. And, though I and others believe homosexuality to be a sin, I also believe that sin is basically disobedience to God; and that one sin is as bad as another. I would say that we need to be clear on that, and need to ask the forgiveness of anyone we have caused to believe otherwise. I must say I appreciate your ability to blend candor and tact in making your point. There may be hope in this debate after all. <BR/><BR/>MBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29364304.post-1158201380001579002006-09-13T21:36:00.000-05:002006-09-13T21:36:00.000-05:00anonymous wrote:"There is no "right" or"wrong" ans...anonymous wrote:<BR/><BR/>"There is no "right" or<BR/>"wrong" answer. We simply learn what we can, pray, and seek to discern decide what seems most right to each of us and go with it"<BR/><BR/>This above statement is a good way to express the idea of moral relativism -- that there are no absolute truths -- or each does what is right in his own eyes. Dr. Ronald Nash, in his course on Christian Ethics, gave a quick and, I believe, a humorous way of refuting this argument. You simply ask if a supporter of moral relativism is sure about his position. They can't say yes, because they would then hold that there is an absolute truth that all truth is relative. Therefore they must answer no they are unsure that they what they believe is true.<BR/><BR/>So, anonymous, are you sure that the statement "There is no "right" or "wrong" answer" is a true statement?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29364304.post-1158194306969766032006-09-13T19:38:00.000-05:002006-09-13T19:38:00.000-05:00I am one of the 36 who voted NO. Through all of m...I am one of the 36 who voted NO. Through all of my efforts to make an educated decision, I received an e-mail that sums it up:<BR/><BR/>I think it's just a matter of how you decide to<BR/>understand Jesus and how to understand the Bible. If you decide that every<BR/>word in the Bible came directly from God (as the Muslims believe about the<BR/>Qu'ran), then you have to take every word literally -- but probably in it's<BR/>original language. That's fine, but if you choose that route, you have to<BR/>take them all -- not just some of them. Did the church advocate "turning<BR/>the other cheek" after 9/11? If, on the other hand, you take into<BR/>consideration the social and moral influences of the time, who was writing<BR/>it, to whom it was being written, etc., then you see it somewhat<BR/>differently. (Thus it becomes questionable whether Jesus' command to turn<BR/>the other cheek, apparently spoken in terms of one individual to another,<BR/>holds when you are considering something like 9/11). Even the four Gospel<BR/>writers weren't exactly in sync. I believe that the way Jesus, himself,<BR/>lived -- the broad brush view rather than the hair-by-hair of the brush<BR/>view) is the truest manifestation of what God wants us to follow. <BR/><BR/>Paul had no idea when he wrote his letters to the various churches that they<BR/>would someday make the Bible. I'm sure that he felt God leading him to<BR/>write what he did to each church because of its own unique problems. His<BR/>messages to the various churches differ widely. If he were writing a letter<BR/>to the Kirk today, do you think he would say, "Well done, good and faithful<BR/>servants" or would he say something else? I personally think he might say<BR/>something else. If Jesus' life is the ultimate authority, we see that he<BR/>befriended and loved everyone that the church of the time considered "out."<BR/>Without a doubt, homosexuals are the "lepers" of our time. Jesus made no<BR/>mention of them at all (in fact he was harshest against the religious<BR/>authorities of his day), so it seems very strange that this one minority<BR/>population of people, most of whom are about as non-threatening as anyone<BR/>could be, should be singled out as the group for which the "line is drawn."<BR/><BR/>I think the bottom line for each of us is to recognize that "what Jesus<BR/>meant" and "what the Bible means" has been addressed in hundreds of<BR/>thousands of documents and books for 2000 years. There is no "right" or<BR/>"wrong" answer. We simply learn what we can, pray, and seek to discern<BR/>decide what seems most right to each of us and go with it, fully<BR/>acknowledging that God is much bigger than any of our understandings of God.<BR/>For Christians, we believe that if we miss the mark a little, we are still<BR/>going to be reunited with God through grace -- not because we were "right"<BR/>or "wrong" about something we couldn't figure out. I think I can see Jesus<BR/>smiling on your efforts to seek the truth for yourself and your family --<BR/>and I have a strong suspicion that that's good enough.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29364304.post-1158190607591982942006-09-13T18:36:00.000-05:002006-09-13T18:36:00.000-05:00Amen to the comments of Forgiven and Forgiving. Ac...Amen to the comments of Forgiven and Forgiving. <BR/><BR/>Actually, Reformed and Reforming, I am glad that you are not angry; just "befuddled." From your comments I take that to mean you are confused as to why we would want to be Presbyterians and also embrace an evangelical view of Christianity. It almost seems like you are saying that if we want to behave that way then we are welcome to leave the Presbyterian Church. You can't mean it that way; or do you? At any rate, I have not yet looked into your suggestion pertaining to joining other denominations. Do you mean to endorse these organizations, or are you maligning them? Also, I believe the Constitution I supported and defended for a good part of my life entitles me to go to church wherever I wish. So I truly hope you aren't trying to suggest I should "get out". If I choose to worship with the body of believers at Kirk of the Hills I am free to do so. Again, I consider myself to be a follower of Christ and not bound by denominational history. Nor am I bound by your opinion as to where I am and am not welcome. As for Tom and Wayne, they have my continuing respect and support. If what I have to say is offensive to you, then understand that your attitude and implications about our motives and actions are equally offensive. Having said that, please know that I have no animosity toward you. I have been as respectful to you as the situation allows. I would simply implore you to show more respect for us and for our pastors.<BR/><BR/>MBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29364304.post-1158180523503110352006-09-13T15:48:00.000-05:002006-09-13T15:48:00.000-05:00Reformed and Reforming,When referring to the "Rapt...Reformed and Reforming,<BR/><BR/>When referring to the "Rapture", I am assumming you mean one of the views held by a type of Premillennialist: either pre-, mid-, or post-tribulationist, aka Dispensationalism (whew what a keyboard-full!) Anyway, I don't see any reason why one couldn't use the term rapture in reference to 1 Thes 4:16. Questions relating to the timing of the Millennium (Rev. 20:1-6) and the Rapture (1 Thess. 4:16-17) and their relationships to the Second Coming of Christ have been debated for years and years and years. My point is, I don't think you can classify someone as a Dispensationalist just because they use the word rapture. My other point is that all the above is an in house debate not secular politics or essential doctrine. The selectivity of Pastor Gray's outrage is fueled by the turning from sound Reformed theology, which is the authority of scripture. We should actually be outraged with your type of attitude that is ignoring the problem all around you. Sorry, to take an offensive mode with you. Hoping we're getting to some kind of mutual understanding, eventually.<BR/> <BR/>Yours Truly,<BR/>Forgiven and ForgivingAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29364304.post-1158179880949237472006-09-13T15:38:00.000-05:002006-09-13T15:38:00.000-05:00I am thankful that you folks are taking a stand. ...I am thankful that you folks are taking a stand. The prophets were stoned when God sent them to wake the people of God up and there are stones being thrown at you. Keep fighting the good fight!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29364304.post-1158152998071786552006-09-13T08:09:00.000-05:002006-09-13T08:09:00.000-05:00To Reformed and Reforming who wrote about his/her ...To Reformed and Reforming who wrote about his/her lack of concern of what goes on in other PCUSA churches, presbyteries, or GA. Whoever you are, you need to read the Book of Order and the Book of Confessions. You are proclaiming your church is a "congregational" entity and not a "connectional" church. You are basically saying your church is not a presbyterian church.<BR/><BR/>Specifically, read this section of the Book of Order: "G-9.0103: The governing bodies are separate and independent, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate governing body."<BR/><BR/><BR/>What Reformed and Reforming wrote is pasted below: "Our presbytery is never going to ordain anyone who is unwilling to proclaim themselves to be chaste in singleness or faithful in marriage. I understand that presbyteries in places like Massachusetts and Vermont might try to. While I don't approve, its really not a threat to me. And there very, very few Presbyterians there and I'm not going to lose sleep over how they do things.<BR/><BR/>I do not approve of the actions of this year's GA regarding ordination or their "receiving for study" the silly little paper regarding names for the Trinity. To some degree, I am heartened that the Fidelity and Chastity requirement was overwhelmingly approved. But, of course, the GA is just an annual church politics meeting and nothing more. Politicians in the church (Rightwing and Left) get very excited about it. The faithful back home could not much care unless the church politicians get them riled up about this transgression or the other."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29364304.post-1158116714789777092006-09-12T22:05:00.000-05:002006-09-12T22:05:00.000-05:00MB - I am not angry. But, I am befuddled. I do n...MB - I am not angry. But, I am befuddled. I do not begrudge the charasmatics or dispensationalists any other sect. I simply do not understand why a charasmatic or dispensationalist would WANT to self-identify with the the Reformed movement or the Presbyterian church. If the leadership or membership of the Kirk of the Hills is heading in either of those directions, that's certainly their right. Just leave if you're more comfortable in the Assembly of God or Church of God (Cleveland, TN). But there is no need to portray yourselves as victims. One thing we could do with a lot less of in our culture is the whole victimization drama. <BR/><BR/>My larger point is that it is obvious that Pastor Gray is very selective in his outrage over PCUSA actions and inactions. As objectionable as one might find the Trinity paper "received for study" by the GA, it is unimaginable to me that a Reformed pastor would not find the Rapture theory at least as objectionable. It is plain as day that the selectivity of Pastor Gray's outrage is fueled by secular politics and not sound Reformed theology. <BR/><BR/>I remain astounded that Pastor Gray believes that 1 Thessalonians 4 supports the rapture theory. To believe that, one would have to completely ignore the Olivet Discourse in the Gospel in Matthew. History is clear that the Rapture theory was invented out of whole cloth in the 19th century by an ex-Anglican priest. It never existed in the first eighteen centuries of Christendom.<BR/>I actually don't think Pastor Gray so much embraces the Rapture theory. It is clear that he is unwilling to offend his political allies who do embrace the Rapture while posting many, many "UnChristlike" posts regarding leaders of the PCUSA.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29364304.post-1158110410361491642006-09-12T20:20:00.000-05:002006-09-12T20:20:00.000-05:00RE: Reformed and Reforming. I have to agree with t...RE: Reformed and Reforming. I have to agree with the preceding post. I'm not sure what your point is either, although I suspect you are driven by some anger that is needing an outlet; and we are it. Asa Kirk member who supports Tom and Wayne, let me assure you that neither I nor the other members of the Kirk who believe as I do are uncultured lemmings willing to blindly follow either of them. We are only behind them because they are following Christ. Granted, my theological training is not even equal to that of a first century fisherman or tent maker, but I and many others are led and taught by the Holy Spirit. And that Spirit is who is pointing the way through scripture and conviction. Not Tom or Wayne. If they stop following Christ, we will stop following them. They know that and are acting upon a conviction that comes from God. They are doing the right thing, and so are those of us who support them. And that is what is at the heart of this matter. If you think that that makes me more of an Evangelical (you use that term as if it is a bad thing) than a Presbyterian then so be it. There are plenty of Presbyterians who would disagree with you. Again, I'm not sure of the source of your anger, but please find some other way to address it than by attacking those who are simply being faithful to our calling. By the way, I don't expect to live beyond the normal lifespan of man, if that long, so I don't think God intends me to wait for several millenia to pass so that I can test His theology that he made plain in the life, death, burial and resurrection of Christ. My relationship with Christ is real and in the present. Also, I have never really watched or paid much attention to Benny Hinn, but I can tell you that if you want to make persuasive points with me you won't get anywhere with anger, arrogance and sarcasm. Even if I were an atheist, which I'm not, I would still think the man is as entitled to as much respect due any human being. Remember "If I have not charity...." <BR/>I pray that Christ will help you deal with your anger. If your postings are any indication of your overall approach to dealing with others, it is probably hurting your witness for Him. <BR/><BR/>MBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29364304.post-1158108583394910772006-09-12T19:49:00.000-05:002006-09-12T19:49:00.000-05:00G.A.C.As I indicated in one of my earlier posts, ...G.A.C.<BR/><BR/>As I indicated in one of my earlier posts, I attend a very traditional, historically Puritan church that has remained within the PCUSA. The issue of "Gay Marriage" is not even an issue discussed in our church or our greater community. I'm a little surprised to learn that Tulsa is apparently different. <BR/><BR/>Our presbytery is never going to ordain anyone who is unwilling to proclaim themselves to be chaste in singleness or faithful in marriage. I understand that presbyteries in places like Massachusetts and Vermont might try to. While I don't approve, its really not a threat to me. And there very, very few Presbyterians there and I'm not going to lose sleep over how they do things.<BR/><BR/>I do not approve of the actions of this year's GA regarding ordination or their "receiving for study" the silly little paper regarding names for the Trinity. To some degree, I am heartened that the Fidelity and Chastity requirement was overwhelmingly approved. But, of course, the GA is just an annual church politics meeting and nothing more. Politicians in the church (Rightwing and Left) get very excited about it. The faithful back home could not much care unless the church politicians get them riled up about this transgression or the other. <BR/><BR/>Very little that has ever happened in a GA has ever affected (positively or negatively, directly or indirectly) our 300 year old, 600 member congregation or any of the 30 other congregations in our presbytery ranging in members from 20 to 2000.<BR/><BR/>You might find it interesting to know that our Presbytery has and does remove pastors and elders for heterosexual adultery and other churches in the Presbytery have removed Sunday School teachers for teaching the rapture. These are more vital issues in the life of our congregation (and I suspect most PCUSA congregations) than whether a presbytery in New England (or New York for that matter) ordains a noncelibate homosexual.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29364304.post-1158108033412192112006-09-12T19:40:00.000-05:002006-09-12T19:40:00.000-05:00Dear all,The epistle reading (Revised Common Lecti...Dear all,<BR/><BR/>The epistle reading (Revised Common Lectionary) for this coming Sunday, September 17, is helpful for all of us. James 3:1-12:<BR/><BR/>1Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. 2For all of us make many mistakes. Anyone who makes no mistakes in speaking is perfect, able to keep the whole body in check with a bridle. 3If we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we guide their whole bodies. 4Or look at ships: though they are so large that it takes strong winds to drive them, yet they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. 5So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great exploits.<BR/><BR/>How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire! 6And the tongue is a fire. The tongue is placed among our members as a world of iniquity; it stains the whole body, sets on fire the cycle of nature, and is itself set on fire by hell. 7For every species of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by the human species, 8but no one can tame the tongue—a restless evil, full of deadly poison. 9With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse those who are made in the likeness of God. 10From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this ought not to be so. 11Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and brackish water? 12Can a fig tree, my brothers and sisters, yield olives, or a grapevine figs? No more can salt water yield fresh.<BR/><BR/>"Reformed and Reforming" is not the only one to say "unChristian" things on this blog. I've read many an evangelical call PCUSA leaders, and anyone professing a liberal view, "Bible haters" and worse. Talk about unChristian. Everyone needs to bridle their tongues -- or in the case of the internet, their fingers.<BR/><BR/>Seeing as we're all made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:27; James 3:9), perhaps we need to ask ourselves what about the image of God shines forth in the people we're so ready to brand as heretics.<BR/><BR/>Okay, I'll go first. Though I don't agree with Tom on many points, it is clear that he is zealous for Christ. The fact is, I've seen a zeal for Christ in Tom's "opposition", also. God shines forth through all of us, in spite of us, and there's no sin that can stop God from making it so.<BR/><BR/>Let's all put down the verbal machetes.<BR/><BR/>Yours in Christ,<BR/>MarkAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29364304.post-1158087163547729702006-09-12T13:52:00.000-05:002006-09-12T13:52:00.000-05:00Dear Reformed and Reforming,I hate to admit it but...Dear Reformed and Reforming,<BR/><BR/>I hate to admit it but I've read your blogs several times just trying to comprehend what exactly is your point. Why are you so upset? And really, with whom are you so upset? You agree with us but you're angry because we left? You have sour grapes so you libel the EPC? You even chose to pick a fight with one member while insulting the rest of us. Why don't you come to the Kirk on Sunday and just meet with us? I know you'll discover wonderful people and the plain and proper study of scripture without a particular eschatological(or otherwise) presuppossiton or paradigm. <BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/>Forgiven and ForgivingAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29364304.post-1158085642480718362006-09-12T13:27:00.000-05:002006-09-12T13:27:00.000-05:00It is very telling that Mr. Weldon, as a member of...It is very telling that Mr. Weldon, as a member of Kirk of the Hills, believes that the rapture theory is somehow Biblical. Of course, it is 19th century fundamentalist nonsense that can be found nowhere in scripture and has been roundly dismissed by every Reformed denomination from the UCC on the far left to the OPC and ARP on the far right and everywhere in between.<BR/><BR/>----------------------------------<BR/><BR/>reformed and reforming - <BR/><BR/>I'm curious, friend . . . are you in favor of many of the "social justice" causes that the PCUSA currently espouses? <BR/><BR/>Things such as maintaining "unity" at all costs with despotic leaders of governments (often led by religious leaders) that slaughter people for no reason, rape women in front of their husbands and children, stone women for being raped (while purporting that they were "adulterous"), and so on? All of this in hopes of getting them to change "through love". <BR/><BR/>Are you in support of homosexual "marriage"? Where in the state and city where it was made legal, the resulting "divorce" rate is already astronomical? <BR/><BR/>Well, tell me sir: if you want us to be so tolerant of your views, and of other people . . . where is the reciprocal tolerance? Have you ever thought that maybe being an example of tolerance might help those who don't agree with you to calm down?<BR/><BR/>One reason why evangelical churches are growing, and mainline churches are not is that the evangelical churches are the ones that are actually practicing the reciprocal tolerance. The evangelicals have this thing that seems alien to you. It's called FAITH. <BR/><BR/>Evangelicals don't need to scream and yell in an angry way to get their point across, because they know that God will do the work for them, if they have courage to do what they are called to do according to the Bible (not Calvin, Knox, Benny Hinn, Oral Roberts, or ANYONE else), and if they just have patience. This is called FAITH. <BR/><BR/>Now, this is not ALWAYS the case. There are always exceptions of course. There are churches where people are beaten over the head and pressured into believing one way or another regarding the minutae, with the threat of Hell looming over their shoulder. But those churches are cultic. That kind of teaching is power-driven, not faith-driven. <BR/><BR/>The Kirk is not like that. I am not a member, but I have attended a few times when I've been in Tulsa. I've never seen them teach on dispensationalism or pretorism. They might teach Revelations, but then they let people decide for themselves what interpretation to believe in. <BR/><BR/>The pastors and other teachers at the Kirk have this quality that seems alien to so many in the mainline churches: it's called respect. They don't see themselves as the be all and end all of opinion pertaining to God and the Bible. They have respect for congregants ability to make up their own minds, do their own research, persue their own interests, and form their own opinions. So in teaching, they lend you their expertise, and let you run with it. <BR/><BR/>I've often wished that I lived in Tulsa, so that I could be a part of a church like that. <BR/><BR/>G.A.C.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29364304.post-1158073617158209482006-09-12T10:06:00.000-05:002006-09-12T10:06:00.000-05:00Tom, I just wanted you to know that members of Her...Tom, I just wanted you to know that members of Heritage Presbyterian Church (PCA) in OKC have been praying for you and your church. <BR/><BR/>Thank you for taking a stand against the continuous downgrade in theology the PCUSA has taken. <BR/><BR/>I pray that gossip and slander are erradicated from your congregation and unity and exhortation replace them, as your congregation goes through this complicated and fragile process. I pray that your elders are able to aid the members in this. May the Lord keep all of you near as long as this process lasts.<BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/>Kurt<BR/><BR/>p.s. reformed and reforming: please, by all means, stop. Going on a super-cynical rampage of men with terrible theology will accomplish nothing. Saying things with grace and humility is a start. Perhaps you should read Calvin, Knox, and Augustine a little more closely, because I don't believe they would handle these men the way you do. <BR/><BR/>If you were actually concerned with the false doctrine being propogated by those men, you would address it differently. <BR/><BR/>I hate dispensational/charamatic/self-esteem bull crap as much as any other Reformed guy, but I've seen that handling these subjects with a controlled tongue often yields better results than cynicism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29364304.post-1158027389240803872006-09-11T21:16:00.000-05:002006-09-11T21:16:00.000-05:00To reformed and reforming,You need to read Scriptu...To reformed and reforming,<BR/>You need to read Scripture more thoroughly. The rapture (caught up in the clouds) is in 1 Thessalonians 4.<BR/><BR/>As to theologians, it has been my experience/opinion that those who identify too strongly with a theologian seem to limit themselves to a too small canon-within-a-canon of Scripture. I would far rather be known as a Biblical theologian than by a particular theologian's theme.<BR/><BR/>If you looked in my library, you'd see that I am well-read in Reformed theology, from Augustine to Calvin and Knox. I studied at an ancient Reformed school in Scotland.<BR/><BR/>As to your comments about charismatics and other ministers, please stop. Your words are unkind and unChristlike.<BR/>TomTomGrayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06578393509662485657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29364304.post-1158026753881054392006-09-11T21:05:00.000-05:002006-09-11T21:05:00.000-05:00Idea for legal approach for churches leaving the d...Idea for legal approach for churches leaving the denomination:<BR/><BR/>My prevoius post points out that polity and theology are intertwined. That means that the court cannot separate the polity out from the theology, which makes a neutral opinion impossible.<BR/><BR/>In the secret game-plan from the PCUSA, they want to label the church that is leaving as "schismatic". This could easily be brought up in court and challenged. The court could be asked which party is schismatic? The court would have to be asked to not hear the case, because they would have to decide who was schismatic, the church or the denomination. This cannot be ruled on by the courts without ruling on theological questions.<BR/><BR/>So, it would be easy to establish that the courts could not decide on these cases but that leaves the question of property ownership up in the air.<BR/><BR/>That is where I think the church that is leaving should request binding arbitration. In binding arbitration, theological questions could be ruled on by the arbitration panel. The denomination would be on very shaky ground if they want to make theological arguments.<BR/><BR/>I am not a lawyer and this may not be a reasonable approach from a legal standpoint. But maybe a lawyer could take some of this approach and turn it into a successful strategy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29364304.post-1158025241612316842006-09-11T20:40:00.000-05:002006-09-11T20:40:00.000-05:00More information from the PCUSA website:Book of Or...More information from the PCUSA website:<BR/><BR/>Book of Order (Annotated) > Supplementary Materials > Citations from Minutes of Predecessor Churches -- (EARLIER REFERENCES) > G-1.0400, UPC, 1983, pp 141ff, Report of the Special Committee on Historic Principles, Conscience, and Church Government <BR/><BR/>The basis of Presbyterian polity is theological. Our polity is not just a convenient way of getting things done; it is rather, the ordering of our corporate life which expresses what we believe. The connection between faith and order is inseparable. At its heart, the polity of the church expresses our Reformed theology. What we do and the way we do it is an expression of how we understand our faith.<BR/><BR/>The Scots' Confession makes this clear when it speaks about the marks of the true church, those qualities which enable us to identify the church. These marks have to do with both purity of doctrine and proper procedure. The two are interrelated for what is true must also be expressed in the way things are done. Thus the right administration of the sacraments has to do both with the proper understanding of them and with the way in which they are done, and the exercise of discipline is a matter of procedure.<BR/><BR/>Central to this relationship between faith and practice is our conviction that Scripture is central to all the church does. The shape of the life of the church, that is its polity, is a direct expression of what we believe the Bible teaches. This is not to say that Presbyterianism is expressly taught in Scripture; and certainly not to say that other forms of church order, reflecting the understanding of others of God's people, are inimical to Scripture. We do affirm, however, that we believe that our polity is biblical in that it expresses our deepest insights from Scripture about the relationship between God and the people of God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29364304.post-1158020184099470672006-09-11T19:16:00.000-05:002006-09-11T19:16:00.000-05:00It is very telling that Mr. Weldon, as a member of...It is very telling that Mr. Weldon, as a member of Kirk of the Hills, believes that the rapture theory is somehow Biblical. Of course, it is 19th century fundamentalist nonsense that can be found nowhere in scripture and has been roundly dismissed by every Reformed denomination from the UCC on the far left to the OPC and ARP on the far right and everywhere in between. Clearly, Pastor Gray has failed Mr. Weldon as a teacher. <BR/><BR/>But, I am flabbergasted to read that Pastor Gray "is not a devotee of a particular theologian, pastor or 'heretic'." Oh Really? Augustine, Calvin, and Knox ring a bell? Or is Benny Hinn just as good (or even better or Mr. Weldon suggests)? Of course all religious denominations and sects believe that their teachings are scripturally correct. But without some theological grounding tested literally by centuries if not millenia, we are left with the Church of What's Happening Now. Whatever the pastor or, even worse, the TV preacher / Republican party boss thinks must be right. It is clear from this thread that at least some portion of the congregation at Kirk of the Hills has no grounding whatever in the Reformed tradition.<BR/> <BR/>I was not surprised that a number of culturally and politically congregations have chosen to depart PCUSA after the last GA. No one in my very traditional, historically Puritan PCUSA congregation supported GA actions regarding ordination. But, I was a little surprised to see that Kirk of the Hills was so anxious to join up with a very small denomination (EPC) that seems to have more than a little of a charasmatic element. Now, I am surprised that you even want to continue the pretense of being called Presbyterian and by implication Reformed. Benny Hinn indeed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29364304.post-1158016338363973862006-09-11T18:12:00.000-05:002006-09-11T18:12:00.000-05:00I see once more some of the the anonymous bloggers...I see once more some of the the anonymous bloggers have bypassed comment on the Stated Clerks latest missive, which is a very good example of what we used to call 'word processing' before the term came to mean a program that helped you create letters and manuscripts.<BR/><BR/>A commentary on Presbyweb by Chris Yim, former Moderator and Member of GAPJC says it all:<BR/><A SRC="http://www.presbyweb.com/2006/Viewpoint/0911-Chris+Yim--Vagueness+as+a+scare+tactic.htm"> www.presbyweb.com</A><BR/><BR/>Aside to Mr Charles Weldon, the 'Rapture' does not come from the Bible, it is not a Presbyterian or Reformed teaching found in any Reformed denomination. If you'd like to know what the PCUS thought in 1978 on this, here is a link:<BR/><BR/><A SRC="http://www.pcusa.org/today/archive/believe/wpb9901b.htm">What do Presbyterians Believe</A><BR/><BR/>BlessingsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29364304.post-1158007064524532672006-09-11T15:37:00.000-05:002006-09-11T15:37:00.000-05:00Anonymous,Thank you for defining the term psychoba...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for defining the term psychobabbler.<BR/><BR/>You are using humor to make light of my "gentle correction." That is well and good.<BR/><BR/>I'll let the good folks at Websters determine the appropriateness of the word "psychobabbler." <BR/><BR/>I would like to know your definition of "gentle correction" because I, being ostensibly a Reformed individual attending a large congregation feel like your attacks on our pastor are certainly not what I would define<BR/>as "gentle correction", but filled with hate and anger. I do certainly find that humorous, which I am sure you do, since you have a sense of humor as well. <BR/><BR/>Care to babble some more on this subject? <BR/><BR/>Did I use ostensibly correctly?<BR/><BR/>I realize that I am certainly as educated and articulate as you but perhaps God can still use me despite by shortcomings.<BR/><BR/>aka<BR/>NetProphetAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com