Talk:Presbyterian Church (USA)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page archives Talk:Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) discussions from the 21 November 2004 to 30 August 2007. For an archived December 2004 deletion debate for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) article, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Presbyterian Church USA. Note: discussions may have been refactored. Bold text in brackets was added after the discussion for clarity and/or the readers convenience.

Israel/Palestine controversy

Most of this article is useful, accurate and well-written, but the section on the PCUSA, Israel and Jews is hopelessly biased. This section needs major work. See especially the text that I reproduce here from the end of the article:

In 2004 Dr. Ronald H. Stone, elder at East Liberty Presbyterian Church in Pittsburgh stated "we treasure the precious words of Hizballah and your expression of good will towards the American people." and "relations and conversations with Islamic leaders are a lot easier than dealings and dialogue with Jewish leaders" on Hezbollah's Al-Manar satellite television network. He did this in his capacity a 24 member team to the middle east as part of the PCUSA's Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (paid for by the church). The PCUSA has since published a statement where they said his views “do not reflect the official position of the Presbyterian Church.” no mention was made on what those views were in the statement.

Hezbollah's expressions of goodwill have included the 1982 bombing of an an American barracks in Beirut where 240 marines perished.

[To see the entire version of the article at the time this section was quoted, see here]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zantastik (talk • contribs)

Agreed

This is hopelessly biased and inaccurate. Whoever wrote it should be ashamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.144.52 (talk • contribs)

There is quite a bit more to be explored on the issue of the PCUSA's divestment from funds with Isreali holdings. I think that a more complete discussion is warranted, along with an unbaised explanation of the confessing church movement's involvement with this particular aspect of the denomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.199.233 (talk • contribs)

The Layman is a notoriously baised conservative publication of the confessing church movement within the PCUSA. It should not be used as a viable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.172.248.201 (talk • contribs)

Biased Tone

Without even considering the issue of divestment, I feel the entire piece is negatively biased and mocking. Frozen Chosen? I am dumber for having read this. Clearly someone has an axe to grind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjp68 (talk • contribs)

Please everyone sign your posts to this page even if you have no userid (but it costs nothing to create one), it saves everyone a lot of time and makes the strings of conversation a lot clearer.

Agreed that this needs work. Where do we start? On VfD it was suggested that we just delete everything controversial and keep the introduction. I think that's overkill, the later material seems well attributed and useful, but it's very biased I suspect. I'm too far away to be a lot of help with that. Andrewa 16:27, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Serious Problems

I agree that the article is slanted but it also contains some serious errors. I wrote the following on the wrong discussion page and I'm reposting it here. (I'm new at this)

Last night I was telling my wife about the usefulness and uniqueness of Wikipedia. As I was catching up on some reading one of the articles had a link to a Wikipedia article and it reminded me to send a link to my wife so she could check out Wikipedia for herself.

Since we are both ordained Presbyterian ministers I searched on Presbyterian and found a very nice article to send as an example. After I emailed her a link to it I started clicking on some other links including the one to our own denomination.

One of the first things I noticed was that a request was made for deletion of the article on the Presbyterian Church (USA). This raised my curiosity and I wanted to find out why.

First it must be acknowledged that there are a number of significant controversies in this denomination and that Wikipedia’s important policy that articles will strive for a neutral point of view will be both important and a challenge. I expect that on some subjects before this denomination that it will be impossible to please everybody.

With that in mind and only a short amount of time available at this moment I wish to make the following observations of the current article (December 14, 2004) [For this version, see here] that I hope to use as the basis for offering future edits. Some deal with errors in the current article, clarifications, and others offer a omitted view points that I believe will more the article towards a more neutral viewpoint.

The section on “Structure” has significant flaws and warrants significant edits.

• Any discussion on the structure of the PC(USA) should start with the concept of governing bodies.
• The significance of the Book of Confessions as Part I of the Constitution and the Book of Order would be useful addition.
• Significant omissions include that each of the governing bodies are comprised of elected representatives and ordained ministers with the requirement of a greater number of elders than ordained ministers.
• The session is responsible for the work of the deacons rather than the pastor. (G-10.0102m)
• Presbyterians refer to church “government” rather than church “management” and is conducted by “governing bodies.”
• The government of the local congregation’s worship and ministry is performed by the session and not the deacons and corporate trustees. * In fact the denomination’s constitution stipulates “The power and duties of such trustees shall not infringe upon the powers and duties of the session or of the board of deacons.” (G-7.0401) Where organized the Trustees perform as legal representatives of the corporation.
• The description of seminaries can include that the PC(USA) is in covenanted relationship with Auburn Theological Seminary in New York and Evangelical Seminary of Puerto Rico.

History:

• There is an error in the statement “The Presbyterian Church USA traditionally used the Westminister Confession of Faith until 1967 when it was replaced by the Confession of 1967.” The United Presbyterian Church ADDED the Confession of 1967 to its constitution rather than replacing the Westminister Confession of Faith. At the same time the church also adopted the Book of Confessions which included creeds from the early church (Apostle’s Creed and Nicene Creed), confessions and catechisms from the time of the protestant reformation (Scots Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, and the Second Helvetic Confession), and from the 20th century the Theological Declaration of Barman. Additionally, an action that took place in 1967 should not be under the heading “Early History to 1801.”

Time does not allow me to continue at this point but I will suggest that many of the specific instances included in the article such as Dirk Ficca’s statement about Jesus and Dr. Ronald H. Stone’s meeting with Hizballah, while they drew a lot of attention when they occurred, I question whether their significance over the years warrants the space they have been given.

One other suggestion would be to balance the link to the Covenant Network with links to the Presbyterian Coalition, and Presbyterians for Renewal. (Someone could include a link to the Presbyterian Lay Committee if they want to create a lot of discussion).

I will contribute edits as time allows and I learn more about how Wikipedia operates.

--PresbyPaul 21:38, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My 2-Cents (What to do with my comments)

Introduction - Keep

Structure - Replace (Rename Church Government?)

Church History (Revision below)

Current discussions within the Church - Delete (or replace)

Balance links the external links

The Covenant Network is an advocacy group. If it is included the list should be rounded to include the other major advocacy groups. NPV issue

Some possible headings to add to the article

• Theological Distinctives
• Stated Purposes

--PresbyPaul 22:43, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Revision of suggestions) After thinking about this last night I would like to suggest moving the "Church History" section to a separate article on "The History of the Presbyterian Church in the United States" since it is a heritage shared by the many presbyterian denominations and not unique to the PC(USA). A section on the reunification of the Presbyterian Church in the United States and the United Presbyterian Church forming the current PC(USA) would be very appropriate. --PresbyPaul 14:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree

I definitely agree that this article needs help, and would be willing to help fix it up, but would like to do so in conjunction with at least one other person. I was raised in the PC(USA) and did attend GA once, but at the same time, I dont presume to know all about this. Any one willing to help me. Meanwhile I will attempt to work on some of your suggestions... shaile 21:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I read the section on incident with Samir Makhlouf at The College of Wooster. I'm an '03 Wooster Graduate, and had never heard anything about any of this. Searching both the COW and PCUSA websites yielding only an opinion piece from the Wooster Voice after the fact. Supposedly there was a statement by President Hales, but I find nothing to corroborate this. It seems that news of this incident spread primarily on the internet, and I'm not sure what to trust, source-wise. Does any one know anything about any of this? I will likely delete the section until I can find a better source of information on this... shaile 22:34, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

VFD

This article was proposed for deletion December 2004. The discussion is available at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Presbyterian Church USA. Joyous 03:19, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Some ideas

Here are some organizational ideas that would vastly improve the article:

1. Put " Recent controversies about the role of Christ in salvation" under "Current discussions within the Church"

2. Instead of just looking at the PCUSA's actions regarding divestment from Israel, look at how they've related to various governemnts, then what they've done with divestment, and only *then*, at Israel.

so..

A. how the church acts vis-à-vis governments

B. Divestment

1. South Africa
2. China (lack therof)
3. Israel

3. Talk about presbyterian worship, or theology, or controversies between this faction or that faction, anything but just focusing on what makes the AP religion wire!

--Zantastik 11:01, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removed [from the section "Recent controversies about the role of Christ in salvation" in the article, see version 29 December 2004]:

This resolution can be seen as a compromise between exclusivistic and universalistic factions, as exclusivists can subscribe to such a statement, believing that non-Christians will be damned, while universalists can agree with the General Assembly's statement as well, beliving that salavtion comes only through Christ, and that Christ saves all, Christians and non-Christians.

OR it could also NOT be seen as such. Kindly do not include the benefit of your wisdom in the article. AFAIK wikipedia strives to provide the sum of evidence and leave such conclusions to the reader. :) --Malbear 10:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Question about HQ

A friend of mine mentioned to me that he thinks the Presbyterian Church Inc. is based in Louisville, and the article here mentions it too. Should this article be part of Category:Louisville businesses ? At first thought it's kind of weird to have a church in a business category, but I guess it is a business too. I'd rather discuss it first before I add it, to prevent conflict. Alternately if someone who does a lot of work on this article would add it then that would be OK. CryptoDerk 00:24, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Structure Section

I just made a large amount of changes to the Structure section, fixing a number of errors and added a bit where I felt necessary, including a brief introduction to the Book of Order. Hopefully I haven't made too many errors myself. Hope this helps for now. I'll attempt to fix more later. shaile 14:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Proposed move

It has been proposed below that Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) be renamed and moved to Presbyterian Church (USA).

The proposed move should have been noted at Wikipedia:Requested moves.
Discussion and voting to support or oppose the move should appear somewhere on this talk page, usually under the heading "Requested move." If after a few days a clear consensus for the page move has been reached, please move the article and remove this notice, or request further assistance.
Maintenance Use Only: {{subst:WP:RM|Presbyterian Church (USA)/Archive 1|Presbyterian Church (USA)|}} -- <small>[[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">psch</font>]][[WP:ESP|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Pschemp|<font color="green">mp</font>]] | [[User talk:Pschemp|<font color="green">talk</font>]]</small> 05:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

DONE. [Unsigned comment by User:Pschemp, 05:01, 23 March 2006]

Comments

• Support. This would match the usage of the PCUSA. EdwinHJ | Talk 16:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This is the form that the PCUSA uses. --Gerald Farinas 16:25, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I agree, it should be moved. shaile 21:44, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Disagree. While I admit to using (USA) in a lot of my writing the official name is Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) - with all of the periods denoting abreviation 4.235.30.199 21:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree. Having been a stated clerk of a presbytery and dealing with the legal department of the denomination, the official name is Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) with all of the periods in the abbreviation.--Cdboyd1 (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

News Item

Pgh Seminary KHM03 20:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Spelling of name

FYI: I write copy for publications of the national headquarters of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and wanted to let you know what I have been told is the offical way to spell the name:

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), note the periods for USA when the name is spelled out; or PC(USA), note there are no periods for USA when the name is abbreviated. There are parentheses, however. Thought you would want to know. Mazeface 22:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

AntiSemitism

I have added a section on antisemitism by the PC -- several articles make it clear that the leadership of the PC is hopelessly anti semitic and driving the church to an extreme "ancien regime" old time Christian anti semitic position. If vandal - editors attempt to delete this section, instead of responding and elaborating on it, I will continue to edit not just the section but provide further evidence into the article.Incorrect 14:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't include point of view material. Fact: Some members met with Hezbollah. Opinion: the leadership of the PC is hopelessly anti semitic. Adverbs like "hopelessly" and adjectives labeling a whole group as "anti semitic" reveal excited language and do not belong in an encyclopedia. Please do not use Wikipedia as a forum for opinions. Mazeface 14:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Mazeface, I notice you have deleted the section on Anti Semitism from the body of the article. The article does not represent a pov, merely a factual statement of controversy. You have vandalized the article by removing it. Should you do it again, I shall be forced to report you to the appropriate authorities at Wikipedia. [Unsigned comment by User:63.205.151.68, 15:30, 4 June 2006]

M, without discussion or review you have once again deleted an edit regarding the claim that the Presbyterian church exhibits antisemitism. You once again have committed vandalism to a page of Wikipedia. If you feel the citations are unfair or contain inacurrate material, you certainly have the right to post other articles and/or edit the article to indicate that according to other sources the citations are making a point that is inaccurate or subject to rebuttal, but to just remove a factual statement that there is a contoversy over whether the PC is or is not antisemitic is vandalism. The article has now attracted enough attention that this issue will not disappear, perhaps it would be better if you acknowledged the controversty but found information for posting that would provide another side to the controversy - that is the Wikipedia way - blantant vadalization is not. Cites to the controversy include: this, this, and this. [Unsigned comment by User:63.205.151.68, 16:11, 4 June 2006]

I have left in the facts, but removed what appears to be personal opinion and links to webpages with specific agendas.Mazeface 16:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

M, your statement above is not true, you have vandalized the article by removing the FACT that there is currently a controversy over whether the PC is anti semitic - and yes, the articles cited to a have pov, but articles may have a pov, they are cited to indicate the controversy exists. I am sure this vandalized info will be added back to this article, censorship does not work. [Unsigned comment by User:63.205.151.68, 16:18, 4 June 2006]

The following is a cite from Christianity Today (M, you certainly aren't going to call that link a pro Jewish biased organizatin, are you?) talking about the controversy. There is no question there is a controversy, to ignore it is censorship. The cite. [Unsigned comment by User:Incorrect, 17:02, 4 June 2006]

Although you have one of the most accurate usernames around, Incorrect, most of us would appreciate it if you would tag your "incorrections" with a username. Perhaps the most offensive and incorrect aspect of your insertions is the bigoted and unsourced presumption that a protest or objection to Israeli government policy represents "antisemitism". alteripse 18:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

A, please point out where I made that assertion. The attempt to censor this article by editing out any reference to a raging controversy over whether the PC is antisemtic is a demonstration of how vandals can prevent the Wiki readership from learning what any fair minded encyclopedia would provide. Your attempt to censor this article will not work, I and others will continue to provide the information that the PB church is accused by its critics to be antisemitic (sources cited above), and your attempt for whatever reason to vandalize this article by removing that information will not work.Incorrect 18:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"PB church is accused by its critics to be antisemitic (sources cited above),". Are you slow? You repeat the assertion right here, as well as in the edit summary when you put it in. Opposing Israeli government policy is not the same thing as antisemitism but you are certainly proving that you don't understand the difference. And a content dispute is not vandalism. Please use standard meanings for important words like vandalism and antisemitism-- your intended meanings are both incorrect and offensive, and suggest (to me at least) you have little ability to contribute constructively here. alteripse 20:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

A, you seem to not understand the Wiki editing process. I (nor anyone else) is suppose to make any factual comment at all in the form of original research - whether the PC is anti semitic or not, and whether it is antisemetic for any particular reason, is not for me or you to say - rather, if the issue is important enough, and a reputable source makes a statement regarding that issue, then it is due for inclusion. I have edited the article not to say the PC is antisemitic - I have provided information that says that critics of the PC feel it is antisemitic - on whatever basis they make that judgement, and cited the articles in which the sources delivered that view. By deleting that comment the reverters have engaged in censorship, to prevent the reader of the article from knowing that some reputable sources out there consider the PC antisemitic, for the reasons the sources might state in the cited articles. If you or I feel the PC is or is not antisemitic, that is frankly irrelevant - what is relevant is that there are reputable sources out there who feel the PC is antisemitic. Your (or whoever) erasing that fact doesn't make that fact go away. When I can again, I will again add that very relevant information to the article. Incorrect 23:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

And please note that whatever is put in the talk page has a different standard than what is put in the article itself - here a discussion in an attempt to convince others to accept an edit, etc. is proper, there should be no difficulty in my statement of what I believe to be correct facts nor you if you think I am wrong - that is a lot different than taking an important fact out of an article.Incorrect 00:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am forced to conclude you an idiot or a liar. You titled the section "antisemitism" and used that term in a new sentence. You referenced it with a website that did not mention the term but criticized the PCUSA for spreading the Palestinian stories uncritically. Your edit summary used the term "blood libel", though none of your citations did. Your citation was dishonest, your claims here are dishonest, and I have no desire to continue this discussion with a fool. alteripse 00:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

My cites were dishonest? From the Jewish Mag: "The Presbyterian Church seems to be using politically correct economic empowerment to cover its non politically correct anti-Semitism." [Unsigned comment by User:Incorrect, 01:55, 5 June 2006]

I looked again at the article. I pains me to admit this, but in the headline and last paragraph that single source claims (with no evidence) the PCUSA policy is derived from antisemitic motives. I apologize for accusing you of fabricating the antisemitism asertion, but I stand by my rephrasing of the sentence, and note that the other jewish sources do not make that rather radical, incendiary, unsubstantiatable accusation. That particular article could be used as confirmation that some Jews seem to consider any criticism of Israeli policy to be a sign of antisemitism. I assume it is a rather fringe opinion-- are you sure you want to dignify that here? alteripse 02:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

From the JewishWorldReview: "The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) joins the list of religious groups committing evil. In the name of Jesus, it has called for the economic strangulation of Israel. They have equated the Jewish state with South Africa during apartheid and called for a universal divestment from it." "It is now time for good people, Presbyterians specifically, Christians generally, to distance themselves vigorously and publicly from this morally sick church." [Unsigned comment by User:Incorrect, 02:00, 5 June 2006]

And this does not make that accusation. And please sign your posts with 4 tildes so the discussion makes sense. alteripse 02:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

From the American Thinker: "Whether we dismiss this hate-filled poem about an alleged atrocity that never actually occurred as wartime propaganda, or condemn it as hate-speech because of its vicious language, or excuse it on the grounds that poets take poetic license, questions remain about why a Presbyterian magazine published such a hate-filled poem, and why Presbyterians officials and clergy continue not only to use the language of demonization when speaking about Israel, but to publish false accusations against Israeli Jews." And from Christianity today: "Some members of the Jewish community have reacted angrily to the call for divestment as ignoring the Palestinians’ role in perpetuating the violence. Some have even gone as far as to accuse the churches of anti-Semitism."

So I am obviously in not being dishonest when I cited those articles to indicate that critics of the PC accuse the church of being anti semitic (ok one of them said "committing evil", in my rush to judgment I equated that with anti semitism, obviousl a big faux paux.) Have we put this puppy to bed - is it now clear that it is a fair statement that critics of the PC have accussed it of being antisemitc (or "evil" or "morally sick" or "hate filled")? Apoligies will be accepted. Incorrect 02:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

(I hadn't finished posting, that's why I had yet signed the above before your post just before this). I am now at rest on this article, the evidence is there, how you want to use it is up to you. And since you asked, as one individual Jew out there who is often critical of Israel, yes, I do feel the PC is antisemitic, and I don't think I'm in the minority on this point. But as I've indicated, that is irrelevant to the article, the only point I tried to edit in was that the PC has been accused of that disease, it's factually correct and of interest. I'm done.Incorrect 02:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

And the evidence for antisemitism is simply the opposition to Israeli policy?-- you have certainly not provided any other evidence. Your equating of opposing Israeli policy with antisemitism simply demonstrates that there are Jews who can match anyone else's irrational religious bigotry. I was assuming you were a mistaken exception, but if you believe you represent majority jewish opinion, you are providing unintended support for lots of invidious political stereotypes. alteripse 03:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Invidious Stereotypes? From the PC website: "BIRMINGHAM, June 16 — Presbyterian James Woolsey ran the Central Intelligence Agency during part of President Bill Clinton's administration, so his take on world events carries a certain weight among General Assembly commissioners. He minced few words when he spoke during an unofficial General Assembly gathering Friday. Woolsey criticized the General Assembly's 2004 decision to consider divesting in companies that refuse to reform such practices as selling bulldozers to raze the homes of Palestinians living on land disputed with Israel. 'We have, I'm afraid, moved into a posture…that, unless what we did two years ago is rejected, we are clearly on the side of theocratic, totalitarian, anti-Semitic, genocidal beliefs, and nothing less,' Woolsey declared." See here. Obviously Woolsey must be part of that Jewish cabal whose statements are supporting invidious political stereotypes; and btw, one wonders what those "invidious political stereotypes" might be. [Comment by User:Incorrect, 16:34, 18 June 2006]

This section commits the fallacy of biased induction. The fact that a few people have accused the church of anti-Semitism does not mean the church is anti-Semitic. Sadly, the church has led with this talking point - that they've been accused of anti-semitism. The fact that several of the people who have made the accusation are Jewish does not mean that the Jewish community has accused the church of anti-Semitism. The people cited in this article and the one on divestment below are probably well intentioned, but they do not represent the mainstream of people who have been critical of the church. The truth is that the motivations for the actions of the church are complex. Sometimes there may be underlying animus, but more often there are other factors at play and, at worst, an inadequate sensitivity or concern about the affect of church actions on the Jewish community. Raising the charge of anti-Semitism should be done in extreme circumstances, not just when there is an action adverse to important Jewish interests such as the security of Israel. NJB10011 19:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Divestment from funds with Israeli holdings

Is the proper titile here. Please discuss such a major change on the talk page before doing it. Thanks. pschemp | talk 16:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Why does this include the 2002 information, it is not relevant - why prove the church had a position on right to return in a piece on divestment? Also, the title is not fully accurate - while Divestment is the part of the equation, with the 2006 action, the focus shifts to corporate engagement. . . NJB10011 17:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC) (NJB) 17:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

History of the issue is important. Why do you think it is irrelevant? Also, in the future, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) and format refs properly. The template lists them with line breaks, but that is only so one can see the different items. In articles, the line breaks are not used. pschemp | talk 15:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It is very much a matter of opinion which history is relevant to this specific issue (divestment). It is the PCUSA presence in the area; is it the fact that they don't have an eccelesiastical hierarchy, so they the General Assembly can act sway policy; is it their endorsement of certain policies as you suggest, but are the same as the other churches; is it that they have not formerly adopted their 1987 report on relations with Jews; is it the election of a stridently anti-Israel national moderator a few years ago; is it their national staff. . . this is all editorial and not appropriate for the article. The part on the 2002 should not be in here. Also the section on reaction to the 2004 overture should not appear in the 2006 section. If anything it belongs in the part about reactions to the 2004 overture.NJB10011 17:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC) NJB

This PCUSA FAQ on divestment (http://pcusa.org/oga/newsstories/divestmentfaqpart2.pdf) is a balanced piece on the what the GA did. It should be a footnote to the 2006 action. [1]NJB10011 18:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)(NJB)

It is fairly obvious that you disagree with this policy. Adding facts about it fine, but insertions to skew the article to your opinions are not. pschemp | talk 00:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph should be moved to the end of the first paragraph in this section - where the article deals with 2004 - it doesn't belong at the end of the paragraph on 2006. Many Christian and Jewish groups criticized the 2004 policies which objected to Israel's security barrier regardless of location, and said that "the occupation . . . has proven to be at the root of evil acts committed against innocent people on both sides of the conflict." Also, the title should not say companies with holding in Israel as that was never the PCUSA policy. The PCUSA policy said 'companies operating in Israel.' As such, this title is a bit misleading. NJB10011 22:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The article would read and flow much better with a little re-organization. There should be a section - Controversy over policy toward Israel and Palestine. It could have three sections - One on Background (with the stuff about statements from the 40's through the 70's, right of return, balance) - One on Divestment itself - One on the Hezbollah flaps. That was the divestment story wouldn't be sidetracked with which history should appear there - we could have a balanced disussion of the Church history in the area and their pro-Palestinian advocacy (without slanting it). Then the divestment conversation can be just on divestment, the Hezbollah controversy just on that. NJB10011 14:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC) NJB

The section Property Ownership doesn't seem neutral to me. It characterizes one side of a conflict using the loaded term "fundamentialist." Also, I find the appeal to how other denominations' property holdings are managed to be overly sweeping (disregards gathered churches, e.g.) and a bit confusing, since other denominations don't have presbyteries per se. I think this whole section only serves to cast traditionalists in a bad light vis-a-vis presbyteries, synods, and Louisville. If this material is relevant, it belongs in the section on governance. AndyBoySouthPas 22:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone removed the sentence or two that described what the PCUSA did in 2006. Can you please put that back PSCHEMP? (you seem to be the one who best follows this page). if you look at the paragraph now it makes no sense. (NJB) [Comment by User:NJB10011, 20:51, 17 January 2007]

Hizballah, general focus of the article

I removed the line "The US State Department defines Hezbollah (aka Hizballah, "Party of God") as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO)". While discussions about the nature of Hezbollah may be pertinant within the context of a discussion of a meeting between PCUSA members and Hezbollah, there are several problems with this reference. It seems to suggest that the U.S. State Department's definition is authoratative (no mention of other government's view), and furthermore, it seems to be an attempt to say "look how bad this group is". (The redundant millitary-speak acronym, FTO, only serves to reinforce this problem with the line's tone).

Perhaps another line could be inserted, saying something to the effect that "Hizballah has often been criticized by western countries, who consider it to be a terrorist organization".

This brings me to a larger point: This article suffers from systematic bias. For heaven's sake (no joke intended), the section on divestment from Israel is almost as long as the section on the church's history! Where's the section on theology? The only theologically related sections deal with hot-button issues (for some within the church), such as salvation of non-Christians and gays. See WP:Undue weight

I would gladly fix this article myself if I had the requisite knowledge; since this is not the case, I'm inserting an {{Expansion}} tag.

--Zantastik talk 21:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that much of this article is begining to fall under Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight, so when i get a chance I'm going to spin off the whole divestment from isreal section into a sub article, so it can be broungt down to only a few lines here --T-rex 21:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

excellent idea. pschemp | talk 21:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

ok, I've done it (mostly as a copy paste job) the hard part now is reducing the issue to a single NPOV phargraph for this article --T-rex 01:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

9/11 Conspiracy Theory Book

I've added a news item regarding the Church's recent publication of a book charging that George Bush murdered thousands of Americans and destroyed the WTC. User Pschemp deleted the reference, saying, "take it to the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. this doesn't belong here. ppc gets no money from PCUSA." I'm going to put it back and ask for other opinions. The item is appropriate for this page because the main article covers several other controversies about the Church's interaction with Hezbollah and Israel. When part of the Church takes a radical political position (or at least declares it reasonable), that's relevant to our task of explaining what the Church is.

The book reference, which is also about Middle Eastern terrorism and "Zionism," fits right in. It may be true that the PPC gets no money from the Church, but the fact that it's apparently an integral, profitable part of the Church makes its actions relevant to discussion of the Church itself. To argue otherwise is like saying, "Enron's financial scandals have no place in a discussion of Enron; after all, it was mostly the accounting department's fault, and the department gets no net funding from the corporation."

How about merging these news references into a single "Controversies" section?

--Kris Schnee 21:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

no, I'm sorry, the book is a minor detail and not official policy. If it was endorsed by the denomination as the absolute truth, (which it isn't) that would be different. It needs to stay out. pschemp | talk 21:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The Hezbollah stuff is marginally notable because it resulted in a press release from the ADL, some press coverage, and later involved the General Council firing some folks. There's no indication that this book has caused a bona-fide controversy 'yet', or will. Also, the PPC specifically states that "Books specifically for the PC(USA) are published under our Geneva Press imprint" and books "under its Westminster John Knox Press imprint cover the spectrum of modern religious thought and represent the work of scholarly and popular authors of many different religious affiliations." [2] They are pretty clear in stating that this is not at all an official view of the church. KWH 22:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Google results at 1738 EST, 2006 Aug. 23:

"Presbyterian Church" divestment: 98,600

"Presbyterian Church" Hezbollah: 91,000

"Presbyterian Church" 9/11: 393,000 (already up to 415,000 since then)

"Presbyterian Church" 9/11 book: 300,000.

Ie, by one measure this story has drawn quadruple the interest of the others, just in the few days since the report of the book's publication. It's been covered by WorldNetDaily, the Washington Times, the Christian Post, Christianity Today, BeliefNet, Publishers' Weekly, etc.. So, it's not a "minor detail" in the opinion of the world. A lot of people find this story relevant.

It has already stirred controversy within and outside the Church. This Publishers' Weekly article[3] quotes the editor of the Presbyterian Layman speaking for the paper, saying that "the Layman feels it is not the Presbyterian Church’s place to publish a conspiracy theory, and that for WJK to do so is tantamount to saying the denomination agrees with Griffin." (Article author's words.) The PPC home page has the book right up front, along with quotes calling America "demonic." The same "Why?" page cited by KWH calls the work "intellectually rigorous" and worthy of serious discussion. These statements show a controversy within the Church over the book, and show the Church to be giving credibility to a fringe political position. It would be bizarre to omit this information from a discussion of the Church's politics.

Since many publications and individuals have already referenced the story, because another arm of the Church has spoken out against it, because it ties in with several related news items included in the article, and because it speaks to the activities and public perception of the Church, the book reference belongs in the article.

If we don't include it, we should also logically delete the Hezbollah story, because that too appears not to reflect the official position of the church. If nothing else, the book reference puts the other "controversy" items in a broader context.

Also worth noting: this article has the organization "Presbyterians for Renewal" and "Rev. Parker Williamson of the North Carolina-based Presbyterian Lay Committee" criticizing the publisher. The Church is presumably making money off of this book.

--Kris Schnee 02:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have articles from the Washington Post showing that the church (which is what this article is about) has adopted a new position in publishing this book, then they should be cited. Some of the other things you cited - a Google test and the claims from the book's publisher page - do not represent reliable sources. Based on what I have read, the church itself has not adopted any new position with regards to the printing of this book, and the text added to the article is misleading.

Given that the book was apparently printed only a few weeks ago, and there have only apparently been 7,500 copies sold (!) I think Wikipedia can wait it out to see if any actual controversy arises, rather than attempt to create controversy. Currently the quality of sources indicate two things - the book is being heavily promoted (via press releases and talk show visits attempting to stir the controversy) and the usual critics of the church are using it as an opportunity to stand on a soapbox. This is one of those times when Wikipedia should observe something like the Prime Directive - if the controversy isn't yet bigger than a breadbox, then Wikipedia shouldn't feed the controversy.

Also, comments such as "the book reference puts the other "controversy" items in a broader context", and "the Church is presumably making money off of this book" seem to indicate that you are prejudging issues with a certain point of view.

--KWH 04:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree totally. Well said. pschemp | talk 10:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You have not proved this is an official policy. Please stop adding it, you do not have consensus to do so. This is being decried by fringe groups and anti-conspiricy theorists and nothing more. You are violating WP:CONSENSUS by repeated inserting this section. Give it a few days on the talk so people can voice their opinions. So far, you are the only one who agrees. This is not consensus. Sying the church is "presumably making money off this book" does not prove that it is. Nor does the complaint by the layman, a notriously conservative publication. In the overall scheme, this is a minor thing. The Hezbollah issue is much more important and now has its own article anyway. The length of your commentary gives undue wieght to what is not really a giant controversy. pschemp | talk 03:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

maybe we should just lose the current formating and have a list of current issuses within the presbytery, which would allow for this --T-rex 03:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Presbetery? I think you mean denomination. But given the reasons KWH listed, the 9/11 book doesn't belong at all. pschemp | talk 10:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Even though you're leaving this issue out, you should reorganize the other "controversy" sections referring to disputes within and outside the group (currently 3 through 6.1), because they look disorganized. In particular, why is 6.1 a subheading under 6, especially since KWH seems to imply you must be biased to see a connection between them? I'll leave you to figure out a new structure you find tolerable.--Kris Schnee 21:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a wiki regular but can't the book controversy be in the article along with a statement about how the PPC is related to the denomination? The PPC also prints books by Jewish scholars and Christian scholars of other denominations. Every book the PPC prints doesn not speak for the PC(USA) (although it certainly reflects on it). Please resolve this as some of us would like to edit other parts of the PC(USA) entry. [Unsigned comment by User:Geekrev, 15:10, 28 August 2006]

Is there an article on the PPC yet? --T-rex 00:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Due to repeated insertion of disputed material, the article has been temporarily protected (by me: Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)). Please reach consensus on this talk page about any material to insert, thanks... let me know if I don't spot it right away. I hope that protection can be lifted in short order once consensus is demonstrated... ++Lar: t/c 03:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

actually i think the protection is a bit immature, as both wikipedians in this dispute (User:Pschemp and User:Kris Schnee) have been already discussing this on the talk page, but i'll let it be for a while --T-rex 02:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

actually I think it was since Kris Schnee kept inserting the passage without consensus. Makes perfect sense to head off an edit war while some time passes for people to voice their opinions. pschemp | talk 02:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It's been awhile, I have now requested unprotection --T-rex 19:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

just wondering how this edit removed text that was never even here? --T-rex 19:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you looked at the diff backwards. that edit was adding text, not removing it. pschemp | talk 19:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

well, thats a pretty good explaination... --T-rex 20:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Been there done that, that's how I knew :) pschemp | talk 20:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you look at a diff backwards? ++Lar: t/c 21:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, more admins comming by to laugh at me... --T-rex 04:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Merges

Just want to make everyone aware that there is a proposal for PC(USA) Divestment from Israel to be merged with Presbyterian Church (USA) Hezbollah controversy, in my opinion this proposal would also solve the above content dispute --T-rex 13:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure that it would, because the dispute was about a different event than the divestment itself. By the way, why was the recent edit from an unnamed IP address re: that "Wineskin" group deleted? Some of it does look biased (like "losing members at an alarming rate"), but if 120 churches are considering breaking away due to some theological dispute, that sounds worth mentioning. --Kris Schnee 19:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't the ip but I also added something on that group before which also got removed. I'll added it back in, but the real problem is that this group doesn't have much of a plan to actually do anything besides to say that they disagree so its hard to say much about them rather then that they are there, I'll look into that ip edit and see what it said, and possible readd it --T-rex 23:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I see now, they added 5 phargraphs on the topic, it's not that big, I'll try to write a sentence or two in tomorrow --T-rex 23:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Liberal Presbyterianism

PC(USA) has fallen away from being a reformed church and is now very liberal. This could be mentioned in the text.Gotmesomepants 22:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Amendment B

Searching Wikipedia for Amendment B brings up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendment_B#Current_discussions_within_the_Church , but this section, nor the whole article clearly mentions what Amendment B is, or which side of the debate it lies on. Can someone clarify this? Harksaw 14:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Fundamentalist Christian" to "lifelong Presbyterian"

I just made the change above in describing Bryan -"fundamentalism" today is far to the right of what it was in Bryan's time and the Presbyterian church in Bryan's time itself had an inner dialog between modernist and fundamentalist ideas. The Bryan article concludes:

'For all of Bryan's crusade against Darwinism, he was not nearly as much of a fundamentalist as many modern day creationists. For example, from page 13 of Ronald L. Number's Harvard University Press book on creationism's history;

William Jennings Bryan, the much misunderstood leader of the post–World War I antievolution crusade, not only read the Mosaic “days” as geological “ages” but allowed for the possibility of organic evolution— so long as it did not impinge on the supernatural origin of Adam and Eve.[6]

Therefore, Bryan is more accurately described as a "day-age creationist."'

It seems clear that Bryan's problem with Darwinism was its moral implications, not its science, which is not the case with fundmentalism in America today, so it's not correct to describe him as a fundamentalist as the term is currently used.

From Bryan's unused summary at the Scopes trial:

'Science is a magnificent force, but it is not a teacher of morals. It can perfect machinery, but it adds no moral restraints to protect society from the misuse of the machine.'

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kenjacobsen (talk • contribs) 05:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Portions read like an essay, opinions without citations

Before I trim and tuck, I wanted to get everyone else's opinion. Examples:

• Some Presbyterians consider the synod to be an intermediate level of government between the presbytery and General Assembly levels. In several regions Presbyterians consider the synod to be an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. The debate over the future of synods has been going on for decades and is reaching a crisis in some regions. A few synods are robust but more and more synods are reducing their function to minimal bureaucratic and judicial work rather than program implementation.
  • Section needs sources and phrases like "Presbyterians consider..." should be explicitly sourced to avoid sounding like opinion.
  • Suggested rephrasing:
    • Presbyteries are organized in geographical regions to form a synod. Each synod contains at least three presbyteries, and its membership is to include both Ministers of the Word and Sacrament (that is, pastors) and elders in equal numbers. Synods have various duties depending on the needs of those they serve. In general, they are primarily responsible for: Developing and implementing the mission of the church throughout the region, facilitating communication between presbyteries and the General Assembly, and mediating conflicts between the churches and presbyteries. Synods are required to meet at least biennially, and meetings are moderated with the help of an elected Moderator and Stated Clerk. [end of paragraph]
• The Session of the local congregation has a great deal of freedom in the style and ordering of worship in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
  • Phrases like "a great deal of" need explicit sources or they come across as opinion.
    • Suggestion action: Delete the sentence.

Comments? davidwr (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with David. I'm not sure why straightforward structural components of the church are treated so vaguely. It's not just "some Presbyterians consider the synod to be", the church's Constitution (the Book of Order http://www.pcusa.org/oga/publications/boo07-09.pdf) states very clearly what the purpose and structure of the Synods are. I like your rewrite. As far as worship style, the Book of Order explicitly gives Sessions this power (G-10.0102d), "in keeping with the principles in the Directory of Worship" (the W section). I think some version of the sentence has some merit, as a reader completely unfamiliar with the PC(USA) would learn that worship styles can vary and that there is a reason that they do. We could even mention that this is a distinctive as compared to the OPC, which generally follows the Regulative Principle of Worship with little or no exception, but that may be beyond the scope of the article. Flycandler 16:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

How about:

• The Session of the local congregation has the responsibility to determine the style and ordering of worship in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).<ref>{{cite book | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Book of Order: The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Part II | publisher = Office of the General Assembly | date = 2005 | location = | pages = G-10.0102 | url = http://www.pcusa.org/oga/publications/boo05-07.pdf | doi = | id = | isbn = }}</ref> As a result, worship may vary from congregation to congregation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's better, but misses an admittedly nuanced point. While the Session does have broad latitude for determining the style and ordering of worship, it is constrained by the Directory of Worship of the Book of Order. There are specific things that a Session must and things they cannot include in worship services. Perhaps rewording to state: "The Session of the local congregation has the responsibility to determine the style and ordering of worship, within the parameters set forth in the "Directory of Worship" section of the Book of Order." Flycandler 15:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Reading over the article again, there are some IMO more problematic badly written and opinion statements in this area. "High church" and "low church" are not terms used within the Presbyterian Church (USA), though the ideas are similar (formal v. informal--probably better terminology) to the difference in worship styles seen in Anglican congregations. There is a sentence that makes no sense at all to me:

• Within the Presbyterian denomination today, there is a new emphasis to return to the Reformed Liturgy, versus a non denomination style or "blended" worship"

The links provided are (1) to an opinion piece by a professor at a seminary NOT affiliated with the PC(USA) in which he criticizes worship practices that are included in the Directory of Worship, and (2) a links page (no actual statements) from an ecumenical organization with Presbyterian, Lutheran, Congregationalist, Methodist, Episcopal, etc. content. Neither link supports the premise of the sentence (if someone not in the PC(USA) doesn't like the worship style accepted under the PC(USA)'s constitution, why is that cited as proof that there is debate within the denomination?). In a larger context, the "So having said that, it is very correct to assume" is very chatty and IMO unencyclopedic. Flycandler 16:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

20th C History section- suggestions for alteration of POV sentence?

The following sentence gives a useful and interesting piece of information, but several words used seem to me to be POV - i am not sure how to rephrase coherently, any ideas?

Even in the most liberal presbyteries, conservative congregations can be found, while supposedly orthodox presbyteries are more likely than not to have few or no dissenting liberal voices, a phenomenon rooted in the decision of some Presbyterian conservatives to stay put in the main body, rather than leaving to form schismatic groups, as extremists usually did (e.g., the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the Bible Presbyterian Church, the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod).

Problems: "supposedly orthodox" seems POV to me - conservatives would claim they ARE orthodox, but many liberals would claim the same. It seems some variant of "conservative/theologically conservative" wd be more appropriate.

"schismatic groups, as extremists usually did" Schismatic could be construed as POV (though technically accurate) and extremist certainly is. Is extremist ever normally used without some negative connotation? Certainly, as a member of a church whose ancestry is with one of the groups so described, i am uncofortable and slightly offended with the term "extremist" being applied to those theological conservatives who left the mainline churches. Again some variant of "conservative" is needed, but a word/phrase that adequately distuinguishes the more pronounced conservatism.

-- Ian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.215.65.5 (talk) 18:15, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and changed this sentence to:

"Even in the most liberal presbyteries, conservative congregations can be found, while more theologically conservative presbyteries are more likely than not to have few or no dissenting liberal voices, a phenomenon rooted in the decision of some Presbyterian conservatives to stay put in the main body, rather than leaving to form new, break-away groups, as those most theologically conservative usually did (e.g., the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the Bible Presbyterian Church, the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod)."

I'm aware that this is not the best written piece ever, but as no-one responded with better suggestions i have gone ahead, as i feel the original was distinctly POV. I'm know that "most theologically conservative" is clumsy, but can't think of a alternative that doesn't have negative connotations. Also that "break-away" and "schismatic" mean exactly the same thing - but schismatic has particular negative associations in the context of church history and discussion of church polity.

-- 12.215.65.5 15:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)ian

Tagged major sections as needing sources

Rather than tag each one I did it up-top. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2