However, much has happened since it went up, including the Blogger outage. Scroll down for a report on that. More new posts will be added below this one. The essay below is the conclusion of the ninth part in a series by Takuan Seiyo.
You may download this resource at no cost, for personal use or for use in a Christian ministry, as long as you are not publishing it for sale. All I ask is that you give credit where credit is due. For all other uses, please contact me at mark markdroberts.
Today I want to explore one of the stronger reasons for not leaving the PC USAa reason that is fraught with complication and controversy.
There are two main reasons for this. In June of this year, Lancaster Presbyterian Church in New York did vote to leave the denomination, but this sort of unanimity is unusual.
This means that when a congregation votes to leave the PC USAit is also voting to split itself into two different congregations. People who have worshipped together, prayed together, and served together will now be in separate churches. Friends may very well end up on different sides of the vote and therefore in different churches.
This means, in effect, that a particular church does not really own its own property. If it leaves the denomination, it leaves its property, or at least it surrenders the right to keep its property.
This is true, in principle, even if, as is almost always the case, the property was purchased and developed by the members of the church, with relatively little assistance from denominational bodies.
It does speak of what should happen when a congregation has a split vote to leave. This determination does not depend upon which faction received the majority vote within the particular church at the time of the schism.
What this means is that, in theory, the presbytery of which a church is a member has the right to dismiss that church to another denomination.
It seems the the "higher ups" in the denomination don't trust the presbyteries in this case. This has nothing to do with the percentage of the vote.
In fact, as more and more churches are voting to leave the PC USApresbyteries are responding quite diversely. Some have allowed churches to leave with their property without any payment. Other presbyteries have required churches to pay some relatively small amount of money to keep their property.
Other presbyteries have required departing congregations to leave without their property. When congregations have refused, these presbyteries have taken them to court.
So you end up with a situation where a presbytery and a former congregation of that presbytery are suing each other in civil court. In fact, it is neither simple nor painful.
This means that if a church votes to leave the PC USAit might very well lose all of its property, unless the local presbytery allows the congregation to keep it. And in some recent cases, when the presbytery does this, it gets in trouble with higher governing bodies.
But the church will appeal the decision to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, so who knows how it will end?
At any rate, the Presbytery of Eastern Oklahoma has been victorious, so far, in its effort to oust the members of Kirk of the Hills, who, incidentally, paid the considerable expense of developing the property. But, as an attorney for the presbytery said: As I begin to discuss the issue of church property ownership, I must lay my cards on the table.
I feel a deep sadness concerning situations like this one. It might be because I was a pastor of a local church for sixteen years, a church that labored with great effort and faithfulness to build two buildings so that we might faithfully pursue our mission in Irvine, California.
So I may very well be biased in this matter. But, whatever the reason, when I read about what has happened with Kirk of the Hills, my heart feels very heavy, with a good bit of anger mixed in.
It seems incredible to me that we in the PC USAwho also happen to be brothers and sisters in the body of Christ, would actually be fighting over property in this way.
Will the kingdom of God be better off if Kirk of the Hills is evicted? Some point to our covenant connectionalism and shared ministry. But other leaders have been more practical, responding with something like: This will devastate our denomination. Denominational finances would be in shambles. But if this is true, what are we saying about our unity as a denomination?
This seems to be implied when people fear that letting churches leave with their property would lead to hundreds of departing congregations. For them, the church property issue is moot.Many of you are aware that there is an Extraordinary Synod planned in Rome on the family.
There is surely no hiding the fact that the family is in real crisis, at least in the modern Western World, if not throughout many other parts as well.
Voluntary euthanasia is conducted with the consent of the patient.
Active voluntary euthanasia is legal in Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Passive voluntary euthanasia is legal throughout the US per Cruzan alphabetnyc.comor, Missouri Department of . The so-called Camp Fire in Northern California in many ways has become the worst wildfire the history of a state whose topography and climate have.
August 19, saw Iowans concerned with the issue of medical marijuana receiving the first of four scheduled public hearings on the issue before the state's pharmacy board, as reported by an August 20 DesMoines Register article ("Board Hears Stances on Medical Marijuana").According to the article, "speakers at the State Historical Building told the Iowa Pharmacy Board that marijuana is a.
My wife, Linda, is a Marriage and Family Counselor, a Spiritual Director, and a Retreat Speaker. Even if it is agreed, for the sake of argument, that such a death is an instance of letting die, this concession does not show that it would have been morally worse had the patient been killed at her request (active voluntary euthanasia) rather than being allowed to die (passive voluntary euthanasia).