Conversations 

This page is for comments, reflections, complaints ... whatever you care to share!   (Within the limits of the Webweaver's infallible discretion, of course.)

I can't believe how much anti-George Bush and anti-American propaganda is contained in this website. Is Michael Moore on your payroll? How about the whole John Kerry campaign or the elect John Edwards for president 2008 campaign? Does this website ever post anything that talks about the positives of the U.S. liberating Iraq from a ruthless dictator? Anything positive about the president of the United States - a president that has stopped all terrorist attacks on the U.S. since 9/11? Does this so called "Christian" website believe in the commandment of showing respect and honor for the leaders of nations? Did this website treat the adulterous Bill Clinton this way? Did you have a special website on what a lousy filthy pig Bill Clinton was towards women? I'm guessing not because Bill Clinton was a wimp when it came to responding to terrorism and stopping terrorist networks.

Hey guys, time to reflect on who won the election - George Bush beat your ultra-liberal John Kerry by about 3.5 million votes. Do you think maybe, just maybe, most Americans connect to the values and beliefs of a Christian like George Bush than the pathetic values of John Kerry? Or does your website simply reflect the views of the left wing cultural elitists who believe all of us Bush voters are idiots and don't know any better?

I'm looking forward to seeing this note posted on your website. Or does your website only post the views of the anti-Bush anti-America crowd?

Dear Editor,

The Witherspoon Society is promoting an introductory website on radical faith, entitled Radical Faith: Exploring Faith in a Changed world. I found in visiting the site two articles, which as the post-constructionists suggest, seem to be speaking to each other. The first article, "Thought Map - Positivism," gives the history of "positivism" including "Logical Positivism" the philosophical perspective on positivism. The author writes of classical positivism, "classical Positivism is the claim that conclusions derived by using the scientific method are the only valid form of knowledge." The philosophical form, Logical positivism, promoted by such philosophers as A.J. Ayers, holds that only what can be proved empirically, that is by sense knowledge, has any value. Of course the article goes on to suggest that positivism presents a problem for biblical beliefs. The fact is, however, there is an easy answer to both classical and logical positivism. Neither one of their axioms or statements about knowledge and value are provable by empirical data therefore they may not be valid and can possess no value.

[WebWeaver's note:  Click here for our "promoting" of the website to which Dr. Larson refers.]

The other article is entitled, "What is the use of Hell?, written by Richard Holloway, who of course believes both hell and the Eastern idea of karma somehow evolved to satisfy the needs of the oppressed to see their tormentors suffer in turn. But C.S. Lewis had a better idea; he put the logical positivist in hell! In the third book of his science fiction trilogy, That Hideous Strength, he writes of those who are involved in an attempt to destroy the foundations of what Lewis considered the true England, The Arthurian Logres. They were social engineers, logical positivist and materialistic occultist all combined. As their plans come apart, Lewis describes the death of some of the more evil ones. He writes of the evil character Wither who had come to realize that all was lost:

It is incredible how little this knowledge moved him. It could not, because he had long ceased to believe in knowledge itself. What had been in his far-off youth a merely aesthetic repugnance to realities that were crude or vulgar, had deepened and darkened, year after year, into a fixed refusal of everything that was in any degree other than himself. He had passed from Hegel into Hume, thence through Pragmatism, and thence through Logical Positivism, and out at last into the complete void. The indicative mood now corresponded to no thought that his mind could entertain. He had willed with his whole heart that there should be no reality and no truth, and now even the imminence of his own ruin could not wake him. The last scene of Dr. Faustus, where the man raves and implores on the edge of Hell is, perhaps, stage fire. The last moments before damnation are not often so dramatic. Often the man knows with perfect clarity that some still possible action of his own will could yet save him. But he cannot make this knowledge real to himself. Some tiny habitual sensuality, some resentment too trivial to waste on a blue-bottle, the indulgence of some fatal lethargy, seems to him at that moment more important than the choice between total joy and total destruction. With eyes wide open, seeing that the endless terror is just about to begin and yet (for the moment) unable to feel terrified, he watches passively, not moving a finger for his own rescue, while the last links with joy and reason are severed, and drowsily sees the trap close upon his soul.

A regular visitor shares this comment on how we might deal with the conflicts in our church.   [11-20-03]

Dear Doug,

With the cultural wars intensifying between the traditional and the progressive, the east and the west, the hierarchies and the grass roots, the ecclesiastical war within churches follows suit. For anyone who has at least a small measure of church history in their minds, it is clear that a new paradigm is emerging within our own midst.

The Episcopal Church has crossed the bridge into new territory where a 'yet to be seen' brand of Anglicanism is coming to pass. The same is happening with us. It is the heart and soul of the church attempting to stay relevant and ensure its "brand's" survival in a new, fast paced cultural transformation.

Groups like the Lay Committee operate out of fear and hatred for the changes they do not understand, nor will they accept those changes under any circumstances. Groups like the Presbyterians for Renewal are somewhat more tolerant as their agenda is the survival of pietism is some form or fashion in the emerging church.

Unfortunately the bureaucracy in our Louisville offices are more like the Lay Committee in their attitudes toward change, as they resist anything that may threaten their own survival. They too are fearful for their existence and play both sides as long as they can call the shots for their security.

I believe the Book of Order states that the church should seek the fulfillment of its mission even at the point of 'risking its life.' It is a beautiful statement, but it is hell when you have to pay that price, and only a few are willing to do that.

I think that groups like you and Covenant Network must take great pains not to be pushed by the constant barrages from groups like the Lay Committee, into views and actions without sufficient theological examination of the Scriptures.

With a rightist Republican administration meeting a rightist Muslim world, flashpoints are breaking out faster than we can respond. In the name of order and the preservation of freedom, our governmental leaders are unintentionally pushing the nation and the world toward anarchy of a different sort. The church is caught in the current, trying to assesses its survival and positioning to speak the Gospel.

Maybe the best tack is that for now we must know our own, support them, and win as many to what we see is utterly needful for the church and move courageously ahead.

Soli Deo gloria.

Jerry Little

The Rev. Jerry Little lives in Bainbridge, GA.

[A note from your Webweaver: The author of this note is a regular visitor to Witherspoon on the Web, but his opinions are his own, and do not represent the views of the Witherspoon Society.]

We welcome your comments on this note or anything else you find in Witherspoon on the Web.
Just send a note -- and we'll post it here if you identify yourself and are reasonably decent and orderly in what you say!

[E-mail received October 1, 2003, but posted 10-15-03]

Your WebWeaver has never been compared to Jesus before - at least in his hearing. So he must share this note. But these reflections on our Presbyterian culture wars and the end of Christendom are worth reading for their own sake!

Dear Doug,

I caught your letter to the Layman this week. I applaud your effort to communicate with them but I don't think they can open their ears to anyone but their own prejudices. To them your communicated thoughts only confirmed their accusations. You were like a Jesus trying to be rational with the Sanhedrin.

For the present the church is adrift in an cultural ocean with maps that no longer represent the world in which we live. It is like the continents have shifted and the stars point in directions we are not familiar with. As Willimon and Hauerwas wrote we are aliens in a world where constant flux in values and mores has moved out of old Christendom. Scream and protest but Constantine's world is gone. Groups like the Layman have to bash someone or something in frustration. Julian the Roman emperor blamed Rome's demise on the unfaithfulness to the traditional gods of Rome.

Welcome to the 'shoot the liberals' era for all our problems. Even our own denomination is grasping wildly at straws like we can be bigger than the Baptists (Outlook article) and in putting an administrative fee on designated financial gifts. Worship specialists are saying we must go contemporary or die. Mission specialists are saying we have to get back to the old way of sending out evangelists and counting converts.

We had this tremendous paper on Families Living in Transition, but we must amend it to suit the supposed status quo and say we need a mom and dad with two kids and a dog to be a viable family. Get real out there. Single parent families are the norm in our society.

In our camp, first year pastors are dropping at a rate of 60% from the ministry after the first year. Seminary presidents are slipping in their convictions. Sexual misconduct is rampant in the church as well as out of it. We need a new creation in church for a rapidly evolving world. We need to discuss theology like never before. We need compassion like never before. We need forgiveness like never before. We need thinking like never before. We need courage to change like never before. We need humility like never before. Otherwise let's throw up our hands and leave it with 'Come Lord Jesus come' and quit the mission given us. But thanks for trying and airing some of our thoughts more openly than others.

Just a few thoughts in a spare moment. We do think down on the front lines.

Jerry Little

The Rev. Jerry Little lives in Bainbridge, GA.

Got comments on this or any other subject?
Please join in --
just send a note that we can share here!

[11-15-02; updated on 11-19-02 with minor corrections from Brian Wells.]

We have recently received an interesting bit of correspondence from Brian Dean Wells, an elder at First and Franklin Street Church, Baltimore, Maryland.

He sent the following e-mail letter to The Layman Online, but found it published with a few bits deleted, which are indicated here in bold type.

The Layman Online recently assailed my church and 16 others for "constitutional defiance." As I am a ruling elder for one of them, I'm hopeful you will post my response, despite the fact that many previous letters, as well as requests for clarification on the policy about letters to the editor have been ignored.

Within days after our church posted its Position Statements (at my urging), the Layman Online published the article denouncing them. Your capacity for such scrupulous monitoring and rapid response is enviable. The excerpts taken from the First and Franklin Street Presbyterian Church Web site, however, were mistakenly attributed to our Mission Statement (which, in its entirety is, "We seek to become a transforming and reconciling force through our worship, study, service and fellowship"). What you quoted was actually copied from our Affirmation of Faith (www.firstfranklin.org/statements/affirmation_of_faith.htm), which establishes that our ordination policy is squarely within Presbyterian orthodoxy. It is based on and excerpted almost entirely from three sources: the Bible, the Book of Order, and The Confessions, and it was written and approved by our Session in prayerful guidance from the Holy Spirit.

I invite your readers to worship in any one of the accused churches and to visit our Web sites. Read the offending statements in their full context so you can form (or confirm) your opinions about your Presbyterian sisters and brothers based on something other than fragmentary excerpts taken out of context. You may also find out how we are accomplishing the Mission of the Church and spreading Christ's Gospel of salvation and love. You may find some of us happily eating with - and sometimes even ordaining - fishermen, sinners, tax collectors, questioning believers, and supportive straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered Presbyterians. Depending on your point of view, you may find these details significant or extraneous, proof that we are alive in the Spirit or hopelessly lost.

Regardless, I ask the Layman Online to follow common on-line journalism practice and provide text links to the Web sites from which they copy excerpts, particularly when they use them to characterize or impugn the online source from which they are derived.

Brian Wells
Elder
First and Franklin Street Church
Baltimore, MD

You can check The Layman's version for yourself on Layman Online. You'll need to scroll about half-way down a long page of letters. His letter is entitled "Elder from one of the accused 17 Responds"

Of the deletions made from his letter, Mr. Wells says: 

Although it was primarily only two sentences, those consisted of the entire closing paragraph and nearly all of the first. Those sentences framed the rest of the letter in a completely different light -- one unflattering to the Layman Online, and defined my primary purpose for writing. With the edits, my letter appeared not only disjointed, but the subject was completely re-oriented and caused it to appear almost completely neutral as far as the Layman is concerned. 

Mr. Wells then sent another note to Layman Online, of which he shared excerpts with us: 

Until you had published the edited (I would say "emasculated") version of my letter (incorrectly dated by you as Nov 8), I had been under the impression that the publishers at the Layman Online were sincere Presbyterians who were pursuing a particular agenda in an aggressive but essentially ethical manner. I now see that you justify the most base journalistic means with what I suppose you consider noble ends, means which are at best underhanded, at worst unethical and immoral. They do not rise to the level of amateur journalism, much less standards of an organization which claims to espouse the truth and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You are incapable, therefore, of promoting either. 

Mr. Wells then makes a request of us: 

I note that your Web site has an area -- though very difficult to find -- for submitting letters, although it appears to have been dormant for some time. I suggest that, in light of the very active -- and very unethically managed -- Layman Online version, there is a GREAT need for a forum where people from all perspectives can post comments, free from the unethical editing and manipulation employed by the Layman Online. I believe you are well suited to provide such a forum. 

Have you considered reviving and giving more focus to your letters forum, particularly as it relates to issues related to the Confessing Churches movement and G-6.0106b? I hope you will, and soon!

He has also provided the full text of the second letter that he e-mailed to the Layman Online. He adds, "Note that they have not responded in any way (which is as I expected)."

Sir or Madam:

Although you do not publish and have repeatedly refused to provide your policy on letters to the editor, I have determined that it in effect includes the following elements:

- letters containing criticism of the Layman Online - even comparatively less than that which it routinely directs at others - are generally rejected or edited beyond recognition;
- opposing points of view are only occasionally printed, and even then only if poorly constructed, easily refuted, or having been edited to achieve the same effect;
- corrections to your published articles - even those that you could easily verify - are ignored, so that you continue to assert as fact known errors and inaccuracies;
- (admittedly a minor point compared to the others) dates of letters are altered to coincide with whatever day you get around to publishing them, regardless of the date they were authored.

Until you had published the edited (I would say "emasculated") version of my letter (incorrectly dated by you as Nov 8), I had been under the impression that the publishers at the Layman Online were sincere Presbyterians who were pursuing a particular agenda in an aggressive but essentially ethical manner. I now see that you justify the most base journalistic means with what I suppose you consider noble ends, means which are at best underhanded, at worst unethical and immoral. They do not rise to the level of amateur journalism, much less standards of an organization which claims to espouse the truth and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You are incapable, therefore, of promoting either.

Since your actual letters policy is secret, I can't know if it honors requests to have a letter removed once it's been published (even in such edited form). Nevertheless I demand you either immediately replace the letter you produced with the one I wrote, or remove it altogether. Minimally, you should indicate where you edited my letter (with ellipses, for example) to create yours. Failing those options, you should replace my name with your editor's, as he or she has created a letter completely out of context with that which I wrote.

In closing, I call on you to develop, publish and implement an ethical letters policy. As I pray for you, for the Presbyterian Church, and for a truly honest forum in which to discuss our common and differing points of view, I regret that the Layman Online is not such an honest forum. (NOTE: You may NOT publish an edited version of this letter without my express, written prior approval.)

Sincerely,

Brian Dean Wells
Elder
First and Franklin Street Church
Baltimore, Maryland

A response from your WebWeaver:

Thanks for the little nudge to get our "letters" section going again!  We would be delighted to have a little more conversation going on here.  We often receive notes which we attach to the particular stories they relate to, but we agree that we need a place for more random comments.

So here's the place.  We welcome notes on almost any topic that would interest visitors to Witherspoon on the Web.

Our "rules" are pretty modest:

We recently received a note from a visitor to our web site, asking about the process by which our church creates and approves constitutional amendments. We sent a brief response, and asked about what got her interested in this sometimes slightly arcane subject.

Here's her response, which says something heartening about what happens when the Presbyterian Church makes even very modest moves to be more inviting and inclusive. We share it here with her permission.

Dear Doug,

Thank you for your helpful responses to my barrage of questions. I am interested in learning how the PCUSA decision-making process works because in order to participate in the process, I need to understand how it works. I've only recently begun to attend worship services after years away (years when I was struggling with sexual orientation issues, and felt alienated by Christianity's general antipathy towards gays and lesbians).

I'd like to have some input in the upcoming (ongoing?) debates on Amendment 01-A. I'm trying to learn who the decision-makers are, when they meet, how they make their decisions. I'm also interested in how my presbytery has voted on these issues before, so I'll know what kind of attitude to expect if I get to speak to them.

It's been very moving to watch a group of people work to come to an agreement on this issue. I hope it doesn't lead to a division of the church.

Thanks again,

Sincerely yours,

I was a commissioner to the 212th Assembly. I support gays and I am pro-choice. I was never approached my conservatives with an agenda. There were conservative folks on my committee, and some conservatives from my presbytery were at the Assembly. I did not feel like anyone was trying to make me "conservative" nor did I feel that anyone tried to make me more "progressive or liberal." 

I will admit to becoming bored during the debate on same sex unions. Our presbytery has debated similar issues over the past 10 years and it was more of the same for me. But the minister commissioner seated next to me shared that this kind of issue could never be debated on the floor of his presbytery. I cooled my jets realizing that my experience was not necessarily everyone else's - this debate was very necessary for some others. Could it be that we get so caught up in our own experiences that we just assume that they are everyone else's too? I felt that everyone was respectful of the other's opinion. I felt comfortable not agreeing with pro-lifers and those who do not choose to recognize the gay life-style. It was okay to disagree. 

Why do we live in a time when so many think that everyone in the church has to think the same way? Can't we just agree to disagree? Why must we always have a winning and losing side? That's not how life is. There are trade-offs for every decision that is made. I'm rambling, but I saw this Assembly has one that was reasonable. Decisions were not made on some things, because the time is not right to make those decisions if there ever is going to be a "right" time. 

 
Sam Lanham, a retired pastor living in Fredericksburg, Texas, sends this comment on the state of the PC(USA). We share it here with his permission.

Subject: Power Play
Date: Monday, September 04, 2000 6:57 PM

Having been around church and secular politics for a number of decades I recognize in the tactics of the right wing extremists in the church a familiar pattern. It is the pattern of a power play, pure and simple.

It begins when a small group of usually well-financed people decide to take over an institution. Being a minority it is necessary that they attract a majority of the votes. This they do by selecting a target group to attack negatively in such a way as to trigger the cultural prejudices of a substantial number of people.

In our day the target group is the GLBT community; in other times it has been women, ethnic, and racial minorities. But the function of the attack on the target group is the same: gather votes based on prejudice and organize them into a majority.

Having achieved that, the group seizes power and its watchwords "Take power, condemn, and exclude" become apparent. At this point the group (who have previously been loud critics of any centralized authority), now that they control the central authority begin to pass legislation removing discretion from local institutional bodies and persons.

In the case of the PCUSA discretion and judgment regarding ordination were removed from presbyteries and local nominating committees; the new proposal (which must be defeated) will remove from pastors the discretion to determine at what marriage ceremonies they will officiate and from the session the discretion as to how the property of the local congregation may be used. When these "laws" are violated, charges will be brought and the removal of ordinations will be sought in order to weaken further the opposition. The latter is already taking place.

The specific identification of the target group has varied over the years but the underlying issue---the lust for power---has always been the same. In fact, the condemnation of the target group serves, at least to some degree, as a cover for the real issue. In our much needed and concerted effort to be an inclusive and welcoming church, let us not lose sight of that insidious basic power issue.

Sam Lanham

Is Phariseeism still a problem?

A visitor sent this comment after surfing through our site:

6/16/00

There are still Pharisees in churches in the 21st Century. I believe that the sexual orientation issues are just part of the issues that will inevitably splinter the denominations.

It is sad that the "tendency to Pharisee" seems to be part of the human psyche. It is a large part of what our Lord decried in his life, death, and resurrection, but people who claim to be his followers still fall prey to it. I think it is a betrayal of our Lord, and should be treated as such.

I was stimulated by the overall set of issues addressed. The son of a Presbyterian minister, (Dr. Morton L. Booth, deceased), and an elder in Corinth Presbyterian Church in Parker, TX, I am particularly concerned that our church shows the same schisms that the Southern Baptists have been making so public over the last few days.

I believe that Our Lord and Savior was sent to show us compassion and inclusion. I have a very effective female pastor (Mona Bailey), and several gay friends. As a career changer into counseling, I am not in the least afraid of homosexual people, and believe that like anyone else, they are children of God, with talents that could be (and in some cases, are) very useful to the churches. I am appalled that people calling themselves "Christians" would preach an exclusionary and punitive message for either women or for gays in the church..

We have to push our message of the Joy of Christ, inclusion of all God's children in the church, opposition to phariseeism, and forgiveness for all into both the religious and the secular worlds. We must be ready, and steadfast, for a fight at this GA and subsequent GA's, to resist the pharisee (dare I say) heresy. We must be aware that the other side of this disagreement is well organized, and believes they are doing God's work, and that they will be devoted and long lasting opponents. If they force a split in the church, we must be ready to accept it, and go on spreading the joy and comfort of God's peace, as revealed by Jesus Christ and understood to the best of our abilities.

Please feel free to release my thoughts to others as you think appropriate.

Michael D. Booth
mdbooth2@compuserve.com

Please send us your comments!

Now it's your turn!  Why not send a note right now!

PVJ's Facebook page

Mitch Trigger, PVJ's Secretary/Communicator, has created a Facebook page where Witherspoon members and others can gather to exchange news and views. Mitch and a few others have posted bits of news, both personal and organizational. But there’s room for more!

Voices of Sophia blog

Heather Reichgott, who has created this new blog for Voices of Sophia, introduces it:

John Harris’ Summit to Shore blogspot

John Shuck’s Shuck and Jive

Got more blogs to recommend?

Plan now for our 2010 Ghost Ranch Seminar!

GHOST RANCH SEMINAR

July 26-August 1, 2010

If you like what you find here,
we hope you'll help us keep this website going ... and growing!

Please consider making a special contribution -- large or small -- to help us continue and improve this service.

Click here to send a gift online, using your credit card, through PayPal.

Or send your check, made out to "Witherspoon Society" and marked "web site," to our Witherspoon  Bookkeeper: