Presbyterian group breaks away over gay clergy

I just saw a headline with something like the Pope wants to merge Churches together. What does PCUSA believe in regarding to connecting with the Catholics and other churches. I believe they already have some sort of connection. I did notice that the PCUSA share and help provide free shoes for the African children and I believe it was hosted by an armininian Frank Graham.

Are Liberal churches seeking a way to unite arminism and Calvinism?

It is really not an issue of uniting Arminianism and Calvinism as so much a churches having a very common foundation of liberalism uniting. There is precious little Calvinism in the PCUSA today and little of Arminianism in the United Methodist Church today so that there is very little theological difference to prevent unification of the two denominations. The real barrier seems to lie in organizational format. The Methodists retain the episcopal form of government they inherited from Anglicanism and the PCUSA has a traditional presbyterian form of government. Although the PCUSA has dabbled with the notion of having bishops a la the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (a liberal denomination) model, the PCUSA has backed away from implementation of that model as it now is quite focussed on other pressing issues such as gay ordination.

I think it's reasonable to say that the mainline churches see a single theological approach uniting all of them. However they do all maintain some contact with their distinctive traditions as well. My pastor is on the liberal end of the PCUSA, but still admires Calvin, and leads studies of Calvin. To my knowledge, Methodists also share the general mainline approach but also retain some distinctive Wesleyan approaches.

Personally I think the difference between Calvin and Arminius are far smaller than their commonalities. I believe Arminius agreed with this as well. While I don't like the kind of homogenizing approach that would paper over all differences, I also believe that church history since the 16th Cent has typically tended to overemphasize relatively small differences. Even conservative Reformed and Lutherans now tend to see those as different branches of a common Reformation theology. However the desire to justify the existence of the denominations tended to lead to people overemphasizing the distinctions.

I see the same thing with Calvin and Arminius. They both believed both in our dependence upon God's grace and in people being responsible for our choices. They reconciled those two things in somewhat different ways. The arguments between the two look somewhat hysterical, to be honest. Calvin did not deny human responsibility and Arminius did not deny the need for grace. However the explanations did differ, and i think Calvin's makes more sense.

There have certainly been fans of ecumenism that pushed for unity. You're right that church organization has proven more of a roadblock than theology. But I also sense that most members don't really have the desire to merge in the first place. If there had been a widespread desire to do so, we could have found ways around the organizational problems. The recent approach has been cooperation in mission rather than church union.

The discussions about having bishops was in the context of the old COCU, and a few more recent discussions with the Episcopal church. Both of those would have required us to define someone who could be called a bishop. Some folks certainly tried to work out a model like that, but the church as a whole didn't accept it. The Reformed tradition does not definitively reject bishops, and there have been Reformed churches with bishops. I'm not enthusiastic, but I can imagine situations where I'd be willing to accept it.

As to the Catholics, too many of our members are former Catholics who wanted to get away from that church. Our congregation wouldn't have any interest in that, and I doubt many others would. The only effort I know of in that direction was a recent agreement to recognize each other's baptisms. That was official recognition of a de facto position that has been in place for quite a long time. The main effect was to require the PCUSA baptisms actually use the proper baptismal formula. In my view that was always required, but our pastor once did a baptism that didn't conform. As clerk I called him on it, and he hasn't repeated it.

I think it might be useful for the Christian community to have a single spokesperson. But the Pope is dreaming if he thinks he can play that role without acknowledging other denominations as real churches, and without making sure that when he speaks in that role he correctly represents the views of the whole Christian community. Currently church union still means everyone becoming Catholic. The PCUSA is no closer to finding that acceptable than it ever was, though the reasons may have changed. I have a few serious theological problems, but for most of our members the big issues are Catholic legalism and their approach to gender and sexual issues. The theological issues are closely tied to the practical ones, though I am probably more conscious of the theological implications than most members.

Ordination of gays is an issue that is very important to some of us. It was very important to several members of our own congregation (one of them, somewhat ironically, a young earth creationist). However it is only the focus of the denomination because of the conflict created by it. It's a big deal for some conservative congregations, and for groups like committees on ministry that have to deal with them, but for most of us it seldom comes up. Personally I think we'd be better off to make it easy for congregations to leave if they can't abide being in the same denomination with gays. Let them explain it to God in the final judgement.

Most of the church is more concerned about finding ways to carry out the mission of Christ. At national levels the question is whether organizational changes will help.

Some one explain to me how you can interpret gay and lesbian preachers is ok?

It is really not an issue of uniting Arminianism and Calvinism as so much a churches having a very common foundation of liberalism uniting. There is precious little Calvinism in the PCUSA today and little of Arminianism in the United Methodist Church today so that there is very little theological difference to prevent unification of the two denominations. The real barrier seems to lie in organizational format. The Methodists retain the episcopal form of government they inherited from Anglicanism and the PCUSA has a traditional presbyterian form of government. Although the PCUSA has dabbled with the notion of having bishops a la the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (a liberal denomination) model, the PCUSA has backed away from implementation of that model as it now is quite focussed on other pressing issues such as gay ordination.

they way some see it is that it's no more than one who is an alcoholic, or one who suffered from a porn addiction or gambling or had an extra marital affiar. "They fall short" "like alll christians do"

To others its does not matter what their sexual prefernce is because they plan to remain abstinent. Just like a priest-/nunwho may struggle with lust issues of a hetrosexual nature, but since they are not going to marry ... the struggle seems acceptable as long as their is no sex act.

They sort of boil it down to "can a sinner be used by God"? and say who has not sinned and so which sin does not matter.

The views expressed here are not mine-i only pass on what has been explained to me by others.