31 Comments

1. Sandy P:

Good for the congressman.

I haven’t completed my yearly donation yet and our Rev. is going to get a note about this AND our kids visiting Cuba. What, our Indians don’t need help?

Our church highlights our connections with the Jews and this just pissed me off.

Sep 14, 2004 - 7:47 am 2. Carl in Atlanta:

As Scotch-Irish American, I am ethnically Prebyterian. I am still a Christian, but as far as Presbyterianism is concerned I guess you could say that I am pretty much lapsed (despite the denomination’s reputation for being liberal/progressive, I couldn’t take the lingering influence of John Calvin and the doctrine of predestination which still lurks in the background). Due to shrinking membership, the Southern Presbyterians [more conservative, spiritual] and the Northern Presbyterians [more liberal, secular] merged about 8-10 years ago. What you’re seeing here is the logical consequence.

It’s ironic that the liberals have become almost Moore-ishly anti-israel in their outlook– the world has indeed turned upside down!

Sep 14, 2004 - 7:55 am 3. Mike Silverman:

Is the Presbyterian Church one of the churches where there is a strong central hierarchy?

I know this varies by denomination — for example the Catholic Church has a very strong hierarchy and doesn’t allow dissent, while the Baptists traditionally give a tremendous amount of latitude to individual congregations.

Maybe individual Presbyterian churches and pastors should speak out against the baised anti-Israel resolution.

Sep 14, 2004 - 7:57 am 4. Catherine:

piling on

Before we moved from Los Angeles to Westchester, we contacted the folks in charge of the Presbyterian nursery school here and told them that we had twin 4-year olds, one of whom had autism.

They said fine, we’ll take them both. We filled out the forms, got the doctor’s reports, sent in the fee.

Then we got here, and they said no. No explanation given, apart from: “he’s autistic.”

I said I would attend school with him, as his aide, and would remove him from class if he cried.

No.

He’s autistic.

I got hot enough under the collar to cite scripture (that’s pretty hot in my case): Let the little children come unto me, I said.

No deal. Their policy was, Let the little normal children come until me.

Finally they sent us to the pastor, and it was no again.

He also told us Monica Lewinsky was immoral, and Clinton was a good man who had made mistakes. This in the course of rejecting our handicapped child from his school.

I know there are Presbyterians in this comments section, and I’m not looking to smear the entire Presbyterian Church. I also know that that same nursery school has since enrolled children with autism.

But we were new to this place, and every day after that my little autistic boy had to drive with his brother and me to a school filled with toys and children that did not want him.

I believe in forgiving and forgetting.

Not on this one.

Sep 14, 2004 - 8:13 am 5. Lapsed Randian:

I am an elder in our Presbyterian church (akin to serving on the Church’s Board of Directors, with God as CEO), and Roger, you have captured only a small slice of my Church’s meanderings. The General Assembly also passed a resolution calling the Iraq War “illegal and immoral,” and threw in a kicker resolution paying homage to the United Nations.

To the previous commentator, the Presbyterian Church is very much a decentralized church, modeled on the idea of a rebublic, rather than a true democracy. The General Assembly by no means represents the views of most Presbyterians, on the issue of Iraq, the United Nations, or Isreal.

If I knew how to do links and other such razzle dazzle moves on Type Key, I could get anybody interested some cites.

Sep 14, 2004 - 8:20 am 6. Carl in Atlanta:

Catherine– I guess the autistic are not deemed to be among “the Elect”. I feel for you.

Sep 14, 2004 - 8:26 am 7. Kathryn MN:

Another Kathryn here, a member of an Evangelical Lutheran Church. Recently I noticed that the ELC website is very supportive of the Palestinian cause. I suspect that most Lutherans aren’t aware of the leftist drift of their church leaders.

OT: To Roger and all – Thanks for sharing your thoughts online. This is a great blog. I’ll resume lurker status now.

Sep 14, 2004 - 8:26 am 8. Carl in Atlanta:

Catherine– I guess the autistic are not deemed to be among “the Elect”. I feel for you.

Sep 14, 2004 - 8:27 am 9. Rick Ballard:

Like Lapsed Randian, I am a ruling elder in my church, also a commissioner to my presbytery and a member of the committee that oversees candidacy to tne ministry.

The PCUSA is probably no dumber at the top than the UMC (see Donald Sensing’s site for more info) or the Episcopal Church or the Lutherans for that matter. For all of them (at the top) it is always 1967 and you have to support Cesar Chavez and oppose the war in Vietnam. Most of the people in the pews ignore Louisville (headquarters of the PCUSA). All of the denominations noted are losing membership at an accelerating pace with the Presbyterians leading the way. There aren’t 3 million Presbyterians there are about 2.4 million and they are losing about 40,000 per year. Kirkpatrick and the inner circle in Louisville couldn’t find their way out of a phone booth but they do know how to manipulate the General Assembly into gross stupidities such as the Israel divestment scheme (last year it was a boycott of Taco Bell – don’t ask).

As an elder in the church I am always disappointed but never surprised at the lack of moral clarity at the top. I stay with the church only because of the great number of people who are trying to reform it. It is a tiring, boring struggle with few rewards but I’m not the type to cede to what I consider to be pernicious influence. It will be at least ten years before a true change in direction is manifested but the struggle will continue.

BTW – at least half the candidates for ministry under care in San Francisco are definitely not liberal.

Sep 14, 2004 - 8:48 am 10. Pilgrim:

Unfortunately, I must consider a different angle to this story. It may be alledged (with some substance I believe) that this constitutes government interference with the practices of a religious organization. If that letter was sent on official Congressional stationery or, if the writers signed as government officials, then it may be construed as government interference. As far as I know the Presbyterians broke no U.S. or state law. On the other hand they have certainly violated that of common sense and perhaps wisdom.

My opinion, of course, is irrelevant but I, for the sake of clarification, state that I strenously disagree with the Presbyterian position on this matter. However the legislators may have been better advised to send their comments as private citizens.

Sep 14, 2004 - 8:50 am 11. jerry:

Catherine:

I am certainly not the one to take up the cause of a liberal church. And of course if you have some information that you would not rather share with us for personal reasons I understand. Many small church-related daycare, preschools and elementary schools do not have the resources to deal with children with autism or similar problems. It is not that they don’t have sympathy its just beyond their means to accommodate these children. It is sad because it often relegates autistic children to industrial strength programs that deprive the kids of what they need most.

Kathryn Mn:

I am LCMS and if anything the church is pro-Israel like many traditionalist denominations and parishes. We in the LCMS are well aware of the positions that ELCA has taken on many issues of the day. Our relations with the ELCA were a big issue at this yearís national council. I think the effective merger with the Episcopal Church should have been a big red warning flag to more traditionally minded members on the direction the ELCA would be taking in the future.

Sep 14, 2004 - 8:51 am 12. Matt Evans:

Hey folks- my parents were (are?) Presbyterian and were involved in a pretty nasty split involving a rather large church we attended in Baltimore. Apparently, there are two prominent factions in the Pres. church – back in the late 70’s/early 80’s the church underwent a split into two seperate factions- USA and PCA. From what I recall (I was very young- maybe 6-7 yrs) the USA faction of our church actually had the PCA faction locked out of the church, following some kind of vote on the split, which put the majority of the congregation (including the pastor) on the streets without a church to attend (which further resulted in our church meeting for 2-3 years in a public school on Sundays). It was pretty messy- legal action was filed, the case was looked at by the Fed. Court of Appeals, etc. My folks side of the dispute (PCA I believe) never got their church back.

My (very limited understanding) is that Pres. USA is the very liberal offshoot faction of the Pres. church (honestly, I have no idea which faction has more members). My parents are VERY conservative Presbyterians and complained for years about the USA faction and how liberal it had become in terms of social policy. It seems that liberalism is now permeating into the churches stance on Israel (similar to how modern far leftism practically requires demonizing Israel). It should also be noted that my parents have been staunch supporters of Israel since I can remember being aware of the complications involved in a Jewish state in the Middle East. Most of the Christians I know are likewise staunch supporters of Israel.

Samuel opined on the issue of Christians supporting Israel a bit yesterday – I’m always rather shocked when I hear liberal Jews talking about how racist the right is, when literally every church-going person I know with whom the subject has been discussed, supports Israel. On a related note, I finally watched the Passion the other night and I was utterly baffled about the so-called backlash against the flick by Jewish groups – in discussions with Christians about the subject, I’ve never heard anyone criticize the Jews for crucifying Christ- if anything, my discussion group concluded that because Christ’s crucifiction was ordained by God, the Jews were an integral part of the plan. Its interesting that so much of the right, which many times is accused of being racist and anti-semitic, not only holds no ill-will against Israel or the Jewish community but are typically their staunchest supporters.

Anyway, my long winded diatribe aside, the vast majority of Christians I know support Israel unconditionally. There’s plenty of folks who think Pres. Church USA is wrong.

Sep 14, 2004 - 8:53 am 13. Matt Evans:

I see a couple of folks who are much more connected to the Pres. church then I am (I attend a non-denominational church now) and most of the foregoing is based on my faulty memory. I will humbly accept correction if any of the foregoing is not accurate.

Sep 14, 2004 - 8:57 am 14. Kathryn MN:

jerry – Yes, I should really join a LCMS congregation. The ELC is not “my” church anymore.

Matt Evans – I, too, am shocked about some of the perceptions that people have about “Evangelicals” and Christian conservatives. I have never, EVER, heard any bashing of Jews or Israel by family, friends, co-workers or local media. But I have heard a lot of Evangelical-bashing by liberals in the main-stream media.

Sep 14, 2004 - 9:17 am 15. Catherine:

Carl

Thanks!

As I say, I’m just piling on—-but I’m happy to do it, because it was rotten behavior.

But they weren’t bad people; they were just a*******.

Jerry

Our problem wasn’t with the fact that the school didn’t want to take Andrew, though that would have left a bad taste given the fact that I was willing to serve as his aide, and given the fact that this is the one nursery school here in our tiny town and everyone goes to it. (Not to mention the fact that we have an older autistic child as well, and we knew what we were doing. I told the director straight-out: we have no illusions about autism, we know autistic kids are tough, and if he’s disruptive I’ll take him out of the class. Both my husband and I were obviously “parents who can be worked with” and every teacher I’ve ever been involved with has said so. As a matter of fact, when our high school decided to bring our older son “back to district”–a huge risk for them given that he was considered aggressive and dangerous by the school he was in–they later told us we were the only parents they would have taken that chance with.)

Our problem was with the fact that they committed to giving him a space in the school, and then reneged when it was too late for us to line up another school.

What’s more, they reneged without seeing or meeting him, which we asked them to do.

Just meet him, we said. Give him a chance.

It’s unforgiveable.

A couple of months later the local paper ran a photograph of the kindly minister behind his pulpit, only they’d got some woman minister’s name mixed up with his. “Mary Jones, pastor of the Presbyterian Church.”

I’ve still got that photo scotch-taped over my desk.

The real moral of the story: don’t EVER wake up the Mama Bear aspect of a woman’s character.

If that minister stepped in front of a truck today, I wouldn’t blink an eye. Though I would call an ambulance and administer First Aid, come to think of it.

Remember that great saying: I wouldn’t spit on him if he were on fire? (Is that it?)

I’m not there.

Sep 14, 2004 - 10:00 am 16. Catherine:

I remember my dadís best friend Mack having conniptions when I was a kid because the Presbyterian Church had decided to endorse Angela Davis.

That was a big topic of conversation around the house for awhile there.

Sep 14, 2004 - 10:04 am 17. Michael B:

“… the Presbyterian Church took the highly disturbing unprecedented step this summer of divesting itself from Israel. This is no small matter.”

It’s no small matter and should be taken seriously, yet it seems the decisions made were to study the case for recommending selective divestments (not a general boycott) in some specifically targeted multi-nationals, a recommendation to be approved or disapproved sometime next year after their study is completed. On the other hand they did make a decision, one largely couched in platitudes and moral abstractions, to condemn the “separation barrier.”

This understanding is a result of this reading. The wording is somewhat ambiguous and, re the divestment issue, seems to imply some type of selective approach will be forwarded, but even that conclusion appears to be open to some effective persuasion.

(An example of the platitudes and moral abstractions alluded to can be found in this statement by Kirkpatrick: “… the security of Israel and the Israeli people is inexorably dependent on making peace with their Palestinian neighbors, by negotiating and reaching a just and equitable solution to the conflict that respects international law, human rights, the sanctity of life, and dignity of persons, land, property, safety of home, freedom of movement, the rights of refugees to return to their homeland, the right of a people to determine their political future, and to live in peace and prosperity.” That type of overly generalized statement, as rationale for specific divestments, almost Fisks itself; it allows for a great deal of moralistic umbrage but is so one-sided and poorly founded that no serious moral weight can be attached to such a statement, that one thing that effective letter writing might focus on.)

Sep 14, 2004 - 10:16 am 18. vegetius:

My wife teaches Sunday school and is very active

in the local Presb (USA). I told her about this stuff several weeks ago when it first came out.

She says that the congregation (including herself)

are clueless about this and trying to get a response from their local rep to the national is like trying to nail jello to the wall.

Let the shrinking of the congregations increase and multiply.

Sep 14, 2004 - 10:30 am 19. Connecticut Yankee:

Stephen Bainbridge published an article called “Those Divesting Presbyterians” over at Tech Central Station at the beginning of August–to the effect that the PCUSA is shooting itself in its collective foot financially as well as theologically for the sake of a few warm fuzzies.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/080204D.html

Money quote: “The activists at the PC(USA) may have gotten a warm and fuzzy feeling from taking a slap at Israel, but in doing so they injured Jewish-Christian relations, besmirched the one functioning democracy in the Middle East, and stabbed their own people in the back. All for the sake of a gesture that experience teaches will be fruitless.”

Kathryn from MN– I’m Lutheran too (ELCA), and I share your disgust with the way the denomination is trending. Episcopalians who visit Christopher Johnson’s blog (Midwest Conservative Journal) know that all of us in the so-called mainline churches are in the same leaky boat. But judging from what I’ve read of the church in Boston that John Kerry attends, the Roman Catholics have their full share of moonbats in high places too.

And yes, I’m pro-Israel, as are all my conservative Christian friends, whatever their denominational label.

Sep 14, 2004 - 11:22 am 20. Matt Evans:

*The activists at the PC(USA) may have gotten a warm and fuzzy feeling from taking a slap at Israel, but in doing so they injured Jewish-Christian relations,*

This is what so concerns me about this situation. I certainly hope that Jews understand (and I’m sure they do) that the general term “Christian” encompasses a significant number of different denominations and doctrines and what may be the new norm for one denomination is not the norm for all Christians. I firmly believe that the fate of the United States and the fate of Israel are intimately connected and that the fall of one could mean the fall of the other. I’d like to think the pronouncement that “Israel has no greater friend then the United States” will continue to remain true, despite the best efforts of the Palestinian/Arab pandering far left.

Sep 14, 2004 - 11:28 am 21. rickE:

Roger,

syndicated talk show host Dennis Prager(heard on KRLA in Los Angeles) was on this story from the start and wrote this article at Townhall.com entitled “Presbyterian church defames Christianity” Read it here:http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20040720.shtml

Sep 14, 2004 - 11:43 am 22. Joe Schmoe:

Jerry-

Wow, we have a lot in common. I went to UIUC (’93) and was raised as a member of the LCMS (converted to Catholicism when I married my wife).

The contrast between the LCMS and the PCUSA is interesting. When I attended the LCMS in the 70’s and 80’s, it was still somewhat anti-Semetic. It’s not like the pastors supported the Nazis or made references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in their sermons or anything; it’s that Jews were never spoken of in positive terms. It was a soft form of anti-Semitism that was pretty pervasive.

I attended a LCMS school from the first through the eighth grades. Again, it wasn’t overtly anti-semeitc. There was no blood libel, no stories about horns and cloven hoofs, no Holocaust revisionism or “reinterpretation,” , etc. It was just that the Jews were going to burn in hell. Whenever Jews were mentioned, someone would always point out that they would burn in hell. They didn’t believe in the divinity of Jesus; therefore they weren’t saved; therefore they would burn in hell. It was almost a Pavlovian assocation — Jew = burn in hell. In its own way, this was a one a devastating form of anti-Semitism. It was effective becuase it didn’t involve crude stereotypes. The crude stereotypes only work until you encounter a Jewish person and learn that they are nothing like the stereotype. But the “burn in hell” concept — that means that God himself has declared that there is something wrong with Jews.

One of the most intellectually enlightening experiences of my life was when one day, my boy’s cathecishm teacher (who doubled as our gym teacher) declared that he did NOT believe that Jews were, in fact, destined to burn in hell.

When he said this, it was as if a bomb had gone off in the room. The kids were shocked. Shocked! No, we protested. Jews will burn in hell! If there was one fact that had been drilled into us, it was that! It was a bedrock principle, a basic assumption. And the fact that a respected teacher and authority figure was questioning this assumption made the whole thing really, really disturbing.

He then went on to argue that one day, we might meet and fall in love with a Jewish girl. If so, we woudln’t want to believe that she was destined to burn in hell. After he made that assertion, you could have heard a pin drop. We all knew that he was right. His logic was irrefutable. My perspective was changed forever.

In his own way, our gym teacher was doing his best to (a) reform the LCMS, and (b) get us to think independently and question authority. But he was the only one who ever said anything like that. At the time (1984 or so), his view was definately the minority one.

Toward the end, I noticed that a few of the more scholarly pastors were also beginning to take a different approach to the Jewish question. One kept emphasizing that “Jesus was a Jew,” in his sermons. Another would occasionally explain Jewish traditions like the Passover seder and circumcision. The majority of pastors were still firm adherents to “burn in hell” position, but some seemed to disagree with it.

The most interesting thing about the disagreement is that it wasn’t a preachy “reform” movement. The pastors who disagreed didn’t try to introduce a new orthodoxy, denounce others as anti-Semetic, beat the congregation over the head with their more enlightened position, etc.. They simply made scholarly arguments and quietly changed the course of the chruch.

For several years after leaving the LCMS, I attended services elsewhere, becuase I was disturbed by the anti-Semitism and with some other things. But now it has gotten to the point that if we weren’t happy with the Catholic chruch and were looking for a new congregation, I would definately return to the LCMS. The church really has reformed itself. I now respect the Church and am totally convinced that the change is for real. If a bunch of very traditional Midwesterners say that they have rejected anti-Semitism, you can bank on it.

It is interesting to contrast this with the course that the PCUSA has taken. I am shocked, personally. The liberal churches always calimed to be tolerant and progressive, and sometimes they were. I can’t imagine that they were particularly anti-Semetic 20 years ago, certainly not like the LCMS was. But today, they are anti-Semetic and the LCMS is tolerant and humane. What in the world has happened? I just don’t understand it.

Sep 14, 2004 - 12:04 pm 23. jerry:

Joe:

I am actually quite new to the Lutheran Church. I was originally an Episcopalian who got fed up with the politics after the 2000 General Convention. So I am new to the LCMS. However, I was always theologically Lutheran. I choose the LCMS because it was a traditional church. I am amused to find that I am in sort of a “where sit is where you stand” situation. In the ECUSA I was definitely on the traditionalist side (I hate to use the word conservative in this context) now I am amused to find myself on what passes for a liberal wing of the LCMS. I haven’t changed my views just the context.

I think Vatican II re-introduced to all Christian denominations the proper understand of the relationship between Christians and Jews. It has taken several generations to even begin clearing out the poisons of the past History. It is ironic that as more traditionalist churches have learned the lesson that the Anglicans, who were the first Christian denomination to understand this relationship, have forgotten. The ECUSA has become one of the primary institutionally Christian anti-Semitic denominations around.

Sep 14, 2004 - 12:36 pm 24. Carl in Atlanta:

Jerry/Joe:

Pardon my ignorance, but can you clarify the acronyms? Your exchange is interesting but I became somewhat lost up there at that first mention of “LCMS”…..

“Lutheran Churches of the Main Stream”?

“Lutheran Council of Middle-aged Saints”?

“Let’s Call My Saint”?

Maybe I missed the key.

Carl

Sep 14, 2004 - 12:51 pm 25. jerry:

Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. Originally founded by German immigrants.

Sep 14, 2004 - 12:53 pm 26. Gerard Van der Leun:

I hereby call for the Presbys to divest themselves from Palestine!

What? Nobody’s invested in Palestine? Nobody’s put investment money in that white-hot spot of entreprenurial productivity? Humm. My bad.

Maybe the Presbys can go first.

Sep 14, 2004 - 1:11 pm 27. Carl in Atlanta:

Jerry:

Thanks for the clarification. When in comes to religions (and even denominations) I’m always interested, sometimes as a “seeker”, somtimes anthropologically.

For an interesting hour or so check out the “tests” at Belief.net. In the “general” test I got rated as “borderline pagan” (!?). In the “Christianity” test I was rated as a “George H W Bush Christian”. It’s pretty interesting and fun, there are some lively–though mutually repectful– discussions.

Link: http://belief.net/

Sep 14, 2004 - 1:19 pm 28. ricpic:

The Palestinians renounce the dream of driving the Jews into the sea = instant peace.

Sep 14, 2004 - 1:28 pm 29. Terrye:

I have to say this surprises me. My exhusband’s parents were Presbyterians they were conservative people with a very low opinion of anti semitism. They would not have tolerated this.

But they are gone now.

Catherine:

That was a very disrepectful way for them to treat you and your family. I don’t blame you for being upset about it. No excuse for that.

Sep 14, 2004 - 4:34 pm 30. jerry:

For those who may be interested I want to talk about the orgins of modern Christian anti-Semetism.

Liberation Theology, a movement that spread from South America to the US during the 1960’s [no surprises there], reinterpreted the Gospels to say that Jesus came to create a just social order [read socialist] and not to reconcile man with God. In liberation theology Jesus was not God’s incarnate word, he was a proto-Marxist. This eventually led to a reassessment of the role the Jewish community in the crucifixion. Now instead being guilty of sending god to the cross, which in any case would not bother a socialist who are themselves committed to a figurative murder of god, but of counter-revolution instead. As you well know the counter-revolution is the most charge that can be levied by a socialist. As the liberation theologists looked around the world they saw the Palestinians as an oppressed by the same counter-revolutionary Zionist (read Jews) that crucified Jesus. As liberation theology spread and corrupted the hierarchy of the mainline denominations, these churches began to turn toward anti-Semitism. The roots of modern Christian anti-Semitism are found not in the gospels but in the works of socialist revolutionaries. Traditionalists, influenced by Vatican II, abandoned the coorupt medieval interpretations of the crucifixion and returned to the original meaning of the gospel story while the so-called liberal Church abandoned the gospel and turned to socialism for inspiration.

Sep 14, 2004 - 7:11 pm 31. Kathryn MN:

jerry – Thank you for taking the time to write the above post. I have learned a lot from you today.

Sep 14, 2004 - 10:02 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: