Questions About PCA

[Nova Scotian Boy]

There was a couple of questions i had about the PCA and was wondering if i could get some answers.

-What is the PCA stance on what version of the Bible should be used. Are they KJVO or is the version preferred more personal choice with reason?

-Ive noticed that the PCA is a full member of the National Association of Evangelicals how evangelical is the denomination. During my research ive been reading and listening to allot of things by Tim Keller and really enjoy his preaching ect. Most sources i read peg him as Evangelical PCA Pastor is he the norm or not? Would someone of a more evangelical yet reformed leaning still fit well in the PCA or would they be heard pressed to find a church and even be welcomed?

-How does PCA see other denomination (baptists, confessing PCUSA, ect)?

-Now i know the PCA is more theologically conservative then the SBC as PCA is specifically Calvinist while SBC is very broad theologically. However i think it can be noted On other levels sometimes SBC are known for making things that are not necessarily Biblical issues into them such as politics, women only wearing skirts, drinking and many other things. How might PCA compare to this ore they less legalistic about some of these thing or more?

- The last question is somewhat shallow but one im very curious to know if there is an answer. Im a big sci fi/fantasy nut, i love TV and movies of that verity but especially books of that genre. i read fantasy books by Christian Authors (my favorite fantasy author is actually a PCA pastor.) and even Non-Christian authors (I even read the dreaded Harry Potter), i enjoy them on a enjoyment level but also i think these type of stories can be beautiful from a Christian perspective and have a great way to be used by God to reach people. Jesus himself used stories (parables) to teach people about God and this is still applicable now. One baptist find this interest of mine im usually met by a round of preaching about how this form of entertainment is strait from Satan and nothing good can come out of it. How might most PCA members react to this would it be the same as the baptist or not, or is it hard to say and be half and half?

Thanks in advance for looking at these questions? Sorry if there allot or should of made different threads for some just did not want to clutter the forum with my threads.

 

[kenrapoza]

There was a couple of questions i had about the PCA and was wondering if i could get some answers.

-What is the PCA stance on what version of the Bible should be used. Are they KJVO or is the version preferred more personal choice with reason?

There is no official translation that we use, different churches are allowed to choose the version they think is most appropriate at the time. My church uses the NKJV but many of us use the ESV.

-Ive noticed that the PCA is a full member of the National Association of Evangelicals how evangelical is the denomination. During my research ive been reading and listening to allot of things by Tim Keller and really enjoy his preaching ect. Most sources i read peg him as Evangelical PCA Pastor is he the norm or not? Would someone of a more evangelical yet reformed leaning still fit well in the PCA or would they be heard pressed to find a church and even be welcomed?

The PCA is a diverse denomination, so a simple answer can't really be given to that question. The PCA came together as a coalition of several different groups that left the liberal Presbyterian churches and banded together to form a conservative, gospel-preaching denomination. The PCA is a grassroots, bottom-up Presbyterian denomination as opposed to a top-down denomination. As such we have groups that are broadly evangelical, some that are confessionally Reformed, and some that are just good old-fashioned conservative traditional (read fundamentalist) Christians. As a denomination we're not as unified as some other church bodies because we don't always see eye to eye on how the church should go about doing its thing. This diversity can be seen as a strength or a weakness, in reality it is probably both. So all in all we are an interesting group, a very anti-institutional church body.

So - Tim Keller is certainly representative of a particular group within the PCA, but by no means is he representative of the entire church body. Tim Keller is the PCA's spokesman for the missional side of our denomination. His focus tends to lean towards cultural transformation. Because of this focus, he must be listened to with discernment, although he is brilliant. I would also recommend his writings so far. I think that The Prodigal God should be read by every contemporary Christian, any confessionally Reformed person can agree with this book.

-How does PCA see other denomination (baptists, confessing PCUSA, ect)?

It tends to vary, depending on which "group" within the PCA you're talking to. But what it really comes down to is the gospel. For example, most folks within the SBC believe and teach the same Biblical gospel that the PCA does. As such, we are glad to see Christ proclaimed regardless of who is doing it. However, we can only go so far with many of the other denominations in our missions because we are not always compatible theologically; our mission should be driven by our doctrine because we need to act in accordance with what we believe is correct and Biblical. We are much more comfortable working with other Calvinist groups and definitely tend to shy away from those who teach Arminian theology. We do see hopeful progressions in the SBC however, with guys like Al Mohler and Mark Dever bringing the denomination closer to a Reformed position theologically.

-Now i know the PCA is more theologically conservative then the SBC as PCA is specifically Calvinist while SBC is very broad theologically. However i think it can be noted On other levels sometimes SBC are known for making things that are not necessarily Biblical issues into them such as politics, women only wearing skirts, drinking and many other things. How might PCA compare to this ore they less legalistic about some of these thing or more?

We have a whole section in our confession on Christian Liberty and freedom of conscience. This is significant because our authority comes from Scripture, therefore we must speak where Scripture speaks and be silent where Scripture is silent. So, we do not bind the consciences of men where Scripture doesn't. Things like women wearing skirts, drinking alcohol in moderation, etc., are considered to be audiaphora. Compared to some other conservative Christians, we would appear to be less legalistic.

- The last question is somewhat shallow but one im very curious to know if there is an answer. Im a big sci fi/fantasy nut, i love TV and movies of that verity but especially books of that genre. i read fantasy books by Christian Authors (my favorite fantasy author is actually a PCA pastor.) and even Non-Christian authors (I even read the dreaded Harry Potter), i enjoy them on a enjoyment level but also i think these type of stories can be beautiful from a Christian perspective and have a great way to be used by God to reach people. Jesus himself used stories (parables) to teach people about God and this is still applicable now. One baptist find this interest of mine im usually met by a round of preaching about how this form of entertainment is strait from Satan and nothing good can come out of it. How might most PCA members react to this would it be the same as the baptist or not, or is it hard to say and be half and half?

Thanks in advance for looking at these questions? Sorry if there allot or should of made different threads for some just did not want to clutter the forum with my threads.

This will likely vary quite a bit depending on who you talk to. One of the biggest and hottest issues in the Reformed world right now is the question of Christ and Culture which touches on those matters as well as others. But, I think most of us would also tend to emphasize the freedom of conscience in this area also. Those who tends towards a strong Christ over Culture type of view may question some of those materials (specifically the ones which don't seem to be compatible with a Christian worldview), and those who tend towards a strong Two Kingdoms view will tend to emphasize the legitimacy of Christians participating in culture, both popular culture and high culture, and will therefore probably say that you are free to enjoy such materials as cultural entertainment. However, I think most Christians would say that we should always use discernment when we are taking in materials and be careful to understand our worldview and not get confused with Biblical values. That is just to say that we shouldn't digest stuff uncritically, but always examine the ideas that come to us. But, I've always loved Star Trek - and I know my Pastor also likes the new Star Trek movie - so you can take that for what it's worth!

 

[Nova Scotian Boy]

Thank you, i know some of those question had no black or white answer and i appreciate it.

Two more question i have.

-From what ive read PCA is cessationist. How then does the PCA view the spirit in light of this?

-How does the Calvinist view of sanctification compare to the Arminian Wesleyan view of sanctification?

 

[kenrapoza]

Thank you, i know some of those question had no black or white answer and i appreciate it.

Two more question i have.

-From what ive read PCA is cessationist. How then does the PCA view the spirit in light of this?

The PCA is generally cessationist, but not strictly cessationist. What I mean is that the PCA (and the Reformed in general) certainly recognize that God is sovereign and able to distribute gifts however he wishes and to whomever he wishes. If He desires to perform miraculous healing or glossolalia (speaking in tongues) in a modern day setting then He is certainly able to do that. But most in the PCA would be weary of what we see in Pentecostalism and the charismatic movement, which is the effort to make the experiences of Pentecost almost normative for the church and Christians in general. Typically, the Reformed reject that view because we see the experience of Pentecost to be a unique event in redemptive-history surrounding the climax of Christ's earthly ministry and his ascension to a heavenly throne, taking his rightful place at the right hand of God. There are other times in redemptive-history, usually surrounding a significant event marking direct miraculous involvement from God Almighty, that there are a proliferation of miracles. We can think of the ministry of Moses for example. But other than that, especially in times of exile, these miracles seem to be few and far in between at most. To latch on to those points in time, which are pregnant with redemptive significance, and try to build them in to a normative paradigm of ministry is to miss their very significance. They are there to call attention to what God is doing in Christ. To put it more clearly, the experience of Pentecost cannot be repeated any more than Christ could be re-incarnated, re-crucified, re-resurrected or re-ascended. They are all bound up in the same complex of events.

This brings us to your question about the role of the Holy Spirit. In the Reformed view, the role of the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential - in fact John Calvin was called the "Theologian of the Holy Spirit". But His main focus is to point us to Christ. The Holy Spirit convicts us of our sin, points us to Christ crucified for our sins and raised for our justification, and illuminates our minds to God's revealed will through His indwelling ministry. It's always about Jesus. The Holy Spirit is not concerned about drawing attention to Himself by showing off, He is concerned about showing us our need for the savior. We should always be looking to Christ. Martin Luther famously said that whoever seeks God apart from Christ finds the Devil, and that God "hides Himself" in the Cross.

-How does the Calvinist view of sanctification compare to the Arminian Wesleyan view of sanctification?

Our view of sanctification is a gospel based on and not a law based one, and the focus is on what God does in us, not on us perfecting ourselves. You can see this in Gal. 3:3 and Phil. 2:12-13. It is God the Holy Spirit who is conforming us more to the image of Christ, not us. So there are a couple main difference with the Arminians and Wesleyans at this point:

1.) We believe that sanctification is a gospel grace of God and not our own effort. Therefore, we always point the believer back to Christ and his finished work of redemption, rather than trying to perfect them through moral exhortation and behavioral techniques. Not that all Arminians operate that way, but it is a tendency in Wesleyan circles to make sanctification into a human work.

2.) Unlike the Wesleyans, we do not believe in Christian perfectionism or entire sanctification. We strongly believe that there will be remaining corruption in us until we are glorified. On this point, the Westminster Confession says:

"I. They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them: the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified; and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.

II. This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man; yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part; whence arises a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.

III. In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail; yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part does overcome; and so, the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. " (WCF 13:1-3)

3.) A third difference is that we always try to be mindful of the distinction between law and gospel. Although the law shows us what is pleasing to God, it always has sharp teeth, it always points out our shortcomings in not keeping it perfectly and therefore shows us our continual need for and reliance upon Christ. Although it reveals God's character to us, it is never "good news" for us sinners. Many Arminians and Wesleyans weaken the law by making it a set of manageable principles that we follow on our way up the ladder of sanctification. But the Reformation traditions (Reformed and Lutheran) do not believe that this is legitimate and that it confuses Christians as to their status before a holy God and removes the continual need for Christ's priestly mediation on our behalf. On this point the Westminster Confession says:

"Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly;discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives;so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience..." (WCF 13.6)

 

[ThePresbyteers]

. . .-How does PCA see other denomination (baptists, confessing PCUSA, ect)? . . .

I've been digging deep on the testimonies of other Christians regaurding the PCA and the PCUSA and found an interesting new way of describing this issue. One answered a question in this way:
---------------
The PCA is a good solid Evangelical church but it is a reactionary church. It has been fighting so many heresies in the Presbyterian church (it is a breakoff of the PCUSA since 1972) that it is always looking for heresies everywhere.
quoted from this page
---------------
My grandfather was an elder of a Presbyterian church and some of my relatives claim his church to be PCA while PCA didn't exist while he was an elder. My great grandfather held presbyterian services in his own living room for 23 years during the effects of civil war and slavery while many splits happened between Presbyterian groups. I questioned the denominations during the troubled issues between different groups of Presbyterian beliefs. I've confirmed that most PCUSA are against gay priests in their churches while at the same time they voted to allow gays to have certain rights. That goes for many other issues like PCUSA being members of Arminian like churches while the PCA refusing to be members of unwelcomed church societies.

The point I'm making is that too many new denominations are popping up everywhere due to reactions to their old churches. Where do we draw the line and stop. I can see why Protestantism was invented as a reaction to the Roman Catholics and I'm beginning to see that PCA was invented due to a reaction to the PCUSA.

I think PCUSA can still use members that might disagree with their beliefs. It does have a democracy style church orders.

Many say it's impossible to merge PCA to PCUSA. Why not and I believe it can be done by rearranging the book of orders.

We shouldn't react to every little thing and create 1 billion new denominations. What's the meaning of "denomination" in the 21st century? Non-denomination is a joke. They still have a statement of beliefs.

 

[ThePresbyteers]

The PCA is generally cessationist, but not strictly cessationist. . . .

One PCUSA has an earlier church service called "Contemporary Service". A PCUSA pastor during a traditional service claims that the younger people prefer a different style of worship. There are others like to do more singing and have more flexibility in bodily movements and unusual tongue activity. I don't see that in the PCA.
While no one can give me a clear definition of what emerging church or emergent church is, I can see that something works when we change the way we worship according to today's societies. Even our own government are struggling to find new ways to make America work.
Although PCA is growing and PCUSA is declining, I can see the PCUSA growing and PCA declining in the future. By plain sight, I see the PCUSA continuing to struggle with today's demands and could survive longer and strong than the old style church that never had a style based on the Word of God to begin with.
I might see Calvinism mean the same as Arminianism and Arminianism to mean the same as Calvinism. The order of beliefs are different between the two. All I see is culture differences and language change and times has changed, today.

Life is a bunch of new slangs.

 

[hedrick]

I'm beginning to see that PCA was invented due to a reaction to the PCUSA.

I think PCUSA can still use members that might disagree with their beliefs. It does have a democracy style church orders.

Many say it's impossible to merge PCA to PCUSA. Why not and I believe it can be done by rearranging the book of orders.

I'm an elder in the PCUSA. But I can understand why the PCA exists. The PCUSA is a more liberal church. It is, as you note, more open to change. It has accepted female officers, and will eventually accept homosexual officers, although it doesn't currently. Underlying this is a more relaxed approach to applying Scripture.

The approach to Scripture is a serious difference. There's no technical difficulty in uniting the churches, but the folks in the PCA want to be able to run their church using Scripture as an authority in a way that most in the PCUSA think is inappropriate. This is a genuine incompatibility, at a level that makes it difficult to coexist in the same denomination.

The PCUSA has made mistakes in handling conservatives. The PCA was formed when one of the predecessor bodies made it clear that they couldn't tolerate conservatives. Later, when women's ordination became an issue, there was again a decision that effectively said that conservatives couldn't be ordained as pastors. I understand these decisions, but I think they were mistakes. However it's very hard for a group to tolerate disagreements on the fundamental authority for making decisions. I think as long as we have the current disagreement on "literal interpretation" of Scripture, we're going to have conservative and liberal versions of all the major traditions.

In Presbyterian history we have seen unions as well as splits. The old side / new side split was eventually healed, although you could argue that the new issues about Scripture are effectively the same. It may well be that this split will be healed as well. But I think it's going to be a while.

I'm not so sure about your perception of the future. Whatever may be true of specific PCA churches, the conservative Protestant tradition as a whole has been quite willing to try new styles of worship. I doubt that the PCUSA will win over conservative offshoots because of the inability of conservatives to adapt to change. Indeed there are plenty of stodgy PCUSA churches. (I'm in one of them.)

At the moment it appears that conservative churches are both more willing to do the necessary work to grow, and more able to encourage the kind of involvement by members that maintains membership. I don't see any sign that this is changing. The main hope for the PCUSA is probably some kind of compromise that combines enough of the evangelical orientation to keep members involved, with more flexibility in Scriptural interpretation than is typical in the PCA. There are some PCUSA churches that manage this, but not many.

The current battle over homosexuality is also sapping our strength. I know what our kids think, so I'm quite confident about the end result. But it could take 20 years for them to get into leadership positions in sufficient numbers to change things.

 

[ThePresbyteers]

. . . I understand these decisions, but I think they were mistakes. . . .

. . .The current battle over homosexuality is also sapping our strength. . . .

So you think ordaining women was a mistake?

I find most self claimed gays to be too silly, too unattractive or too emotional to related to the opposite sex and never able to find some one compatible, early in their lives. Some gays are probably not interested in sex so that might make them non-homosexual and still claims to be gay. Sex once in a blue moon might qualify for perverted sex. I think some churches find it offensive to see two men or ladies live, shop, laugh and enjoy each other. I'm sure the disciples had to live together and might appear gay or men during war might appear gay. Maybe we should come up with another name for those that are not into perverted sex and simple just want partners to survive on the planet earth. I think "gay" is a newly invented word. I can see why the PCUSA are much wiser and careful about moderned times than the PCA. The PCA might still think the earth is flat. Joining other Arminian-like churches/groups/clubs ain't going to kill Calvinists. It's the arminians that need proclamation from the Calvinists. Soon, the PCA might need to change their beliefs as well to survive the fast demands of society. The behavior of the society seems to change rapidly and we need to catch up. I think the PCUSA are more caught up in times than the PCA while the PCUSA are declining due to more new atheist converts. PCA may be growing but might be growing too fast for a steep fall. So far I don't see the PCUSA straying away from the Bible that much. Not enough for a split. Maybe all churches need to split every month like rabbits multiplying. Look at the mess the Catholics and the Greek Orthodox church are in. They both believe to be the original church while the other isn't. The votes are in so why can't we learn to live with Obama being president? Maybe voting are a good thing.

 

[kenrapoza]

So you think ordaining women was a mistake?

I find most self claimed gays to be too silly, too ugly or too emotional to related to the opposite sex and never able to find some one compatible, early in their lives.

Wow - I'm an evil conservative and even I find the negative way you characterize gay people here to be offensive and inappropriate.

I can see why the PCUSA are much wiser and careful about moderned times than the PCA. The PCA might still think the earth is flat. Joining other Arminian-like churches/groups/clubs ain't going to kill Calvinists. It's the arminians that need proclamation from the Calvinists. Soon, the PCA might need to change their beliefs as well to survive the fast demands of society.

Again I'm a bit taken aback by the ludicrous way in which you've mischaracterized the PCA. It's clear that you're unfamiliar with the church, otherwise you wouldn't consider making comments like that. Please seek to understand an issue before you go making such negative posts.

BTW - hedrick did a great job describing the fundamental difference between the PC(USA) and the PCA. I agree with his assessment and couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Evenstar253]

So you think ordaining women was a mistake?

Hedrick was referring to mistakes the PCUSA has made in dealing with its conservative constituents, not commenting on the decisions themselves.

 

[Evenstar253]

The PCUSA has made mistakes in handling conservatives. The PCA was formed when one of the predecessor bodies made it clear that they couldn't tolerate conservatives. Later, when women's ordination became an issue, there was again a decision that effectively said that conservatives couldn't be ordained as pastors.

Could you expound a bit more on the circumstances behind the anti-conservative decision? I'm curious.

 

[Evenstar253]

As a side note, as indicated by my faith icon, I am planning to join a UCC church. I love the PCUSA, but the Presbytery I'm living in now is really conservative (by PCUSA standards, that is ), and I found a UCC church I absolutely love. But since I was never run out of here for being PCUSA, hopefully no one will object to me still roaming around these parts

 

[Evenstar253]

Wow - I'm an evil conservative and even I find the negative way you characterize gay people here to be offensive and inappropriate.

That's not a liberal versus conservative issue; more of an issue of basic respect. Thankfully most decent people, liberals and conservatives alike, can agree on respecting gays and lesbians as human beings!

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

Could you expound a bit more on the circumstances behind the anti-conservative decision? I'm curious.

Hedrick is quite correct. It happened before you were born right in Pittsburgh Presbytery.

Google "Rev. Walter Kenyon"...assuming google cooperates, it didn't want to provide any of the links i clicked on.

In a nutshell, Kenyon was asked about the ordination of women. He replied that he could not as a matter of conscience ordain a woman, but that he was capable of working with female elders.

Pittsburgh Presbytery voted 147-133 for Kenyon's ordination. The Synod and General Assembly overturned the Presbytery's decision.

Kenyon went on to minister in the PCA.

It is a simple case where no essentials were denied, yet a conservative view was effectively banned from the PCUSA.

Even though it was before your time, i'm surprised you hadn't heard of the case before.

It was one of issues that lead a great many Presbyterian congregations out of the PCUSA, and the famous case of Middlesex Presbterian Church v. PCUSA that was decided in the US Supreme Court in Middlesex Presbyterian's favor.

 

[hedrick]

So you think ordaining women was a mistake?

No. As far as I can tell, Paul recognized female deacons, and there's at least a reasonable chance that he recognized female elders. (It rests on issues of translation.) The problem was how we treated a few dissenters. There was a famous case in which it was decided that a seminarian could not be ordained if he refused to ordain female officers. I understand the argument. What happens if his session elects a female elder or deacon. Would he refuse to participate in the ordination? But I think we want to allow for a range of theology.

I feel the same way about how Machen was treated by an earlier generation. While I think he was wrong, I don't think he should have been ridden out of the denomination.

This history is coming back to haunt us. A lot of us would like to allow ordination of homosexuals. But the conservatives fear that once it's allowed, we won't allow anyone who refuses to participate in ordaining homosexuals. Given the history with ordination of women, I think there's some reason for that fear. That reversal wouldn't happen immediately, but it could certainly happen eventually.

It's not clear to me that the PCUSA is actually Arminian. It's true that we aren't as concerned about doctrine, but the pastors that I know, and the officers who care about doctrine, are still Reformed.

I'm not going to respond to your characterizations of gay Christians. Maybe I should, but I'd find it hard to be civil. Furthermore, they are in violation of the rule on controversial topics: "We do not condone the flaming/belittling of individuals who practice or who are struggling with any of these things." Note however that this policy would also prevent an effective answer to your comments, since it appears not to be permissible to argue for acceptance of homosexuality. While there's a special exception for congregational forums permitting it to be discussed (as long as you neither belittle homosexuals nor advocate their acceptance), I advise against doing so, except perhaps for getting updates on denominational policies and the various battles occurring. Making comments on a topic where one side can't be presented seems like a bad idea.

 

[AMR]

So you think ordaining women was a mistake?

Indeed, I do, no matter what the denomination.

AMR

 

[ThePresbyteers]

Indeed, I do, no matter what the denomination.

AMR

What hits me the most is that women can have babies and men can't so that is a clear definition on the difference between men and women. I think the Bible is trying to show us how heaven works via examples. I mean the rules that men and women must play according to the Bible to show us how Heaven works while on planet Earth. The biggest joke are that there are some who are neither men nor women via born with different combo genitals than most or none at all. Many don't know if they're women or men. It's like half black and half white. We left out another race of people. There are such people. Large corporations have such rules that one must choose to use the men's restroom or the ladies restroom and ~stick~ with that. How creepy is that?
On the other hand, the issues regarding to the roles men and women may be similar to the issues we have regarding to water baptism and infant baptism. Theres something vague about how we use sprinkle or immersion and who can receive Baptism such as infants or believers. Then, again, the most of world is divided between Arminianism and Calvinism and there's such a huge difference between the two.
As far as the roles of women in the largest corporations in the world, I was under many women bosses, half my life, and I find many of them to have excellent capability to run such organizations as well as men. Some of them, gay with children and surprisingly legally married. I'm still questioning on women ordinations. As far as the homosexuals go, I find them doing a better job than I do in many things but it still gives me the creeps. Some are worst with emotional identity problems. I'm Biblically married. Sometimes I wonder if God put me in this situation to ease up on the myths of ancient beliefs.
I can see some differences of how men and women relate to each other in both PCA and PCUSA. Thats why I think the newly defined liberalism might not be such a bad thing. But thats coming from me while having degrees in creative arts and having almost the same capability as masters in Tai Chi. Many churches consider my martial arts to be the work of the Devil and in my own own point of view is that they are old fashioned and that's why I say some churches still think the earth is flat or hide from the moon. Liberalism allows me to continue to maintain my health and balance via tai chi, creativity and studying the Bible. I don't mean to offend a viewer in this topic. Otherwise I'l get suffocated with vague or out of date beliefs. Such viewers that get offended easily may not need to be on Internet at all. My own philosophy is one can say all they want to me be not touch me at all. I'm like a sleeping mouse trap. People bump into me, in the mazy hallways, like I'm a wall and I still don't spill my coffee.

 

[kenrapoza]

That's not a liberal versus conservative issue; more of an issue of basic respect. Thankfully most decent people, liberals and conservatives alike, can agree on respecting gays and lesbians as human beings!

Agreed, but you know the sterotype.

 

[Evenstar253]

Agreed, but you know the sterotype.

Yeah, there are idiots (strongest word I can think of without running into the swear word filter) on both sides. I'm praying that liberals and conservatives can take a break from demonizing each other and at least come together on issues such as eliminating bullying in the schools. Rather OT to this thread, I know

 

[Evenstar253]

CDL--Thanks for the explanation. I don't recall the case ever being discussed in church; by the time I would have been old enough to remember or understand, it would have been old news. I've also never been involved with church government in any way, so my knowledge of these issues pales in comparison to, say, Hedrick's. I'm learning a great deal by reading Hedrick's posts, though