Churches begin leaving PCUSA

[RisingSpirit]

Bien, I do not like using the terms liberals and conservative. They are meaningless. Usually it is defined as a liberal is anyone who disagrees with me and a conservative is anyone who believes what I believe to a unnecessary extreme.

I prefer to do what Presbyterians have always done and call ourselves confessionalists. Any congregation denomination that can affirm the Westminster Confession of Faith as being a true and faithful teaching and interpretation of the word of God and can affirm it without reservation(maybe keeping a bit of liberty on the issue of the sabbath) is someone I would love to see succeed in Reformed ministry.

But I have the same amount of time for presbyterian conservatives who reject the WCF and want to be like evangelical pietists as I do for liberals who affirm the legitimacy of homosexual relationships.

How do we know if all of Westminster Confession of Faith is true ?

 

[Monseigneur_Gentilhomme]

How do we know if all of Westminster Confession of Faith is true ?

hmm....magic 8 ball?

 

[RisingSpirit]

hmm....magic 8 ball?

Just wondering if they might have left something very important out.

 

[RisingSpirit]

Been struggling with church requirments. When looking over this pdf info on the new changes in the Book of Order:
"Ordaining bodies continue to retain the right and responsibility to determine their own
memberships. A congregation continues to elect their deacons and elders and the session examines
them for suitability of office. Likewise, presbyteries examine individuals for suitability to be
ordained as ministers of the Word and Sacrament"

I see here that the Presbyterian Church are treating themselves as a central or global church meaning that each church can do what they want based on how the members want to run it. Most would choose a church based on the location and the people that live near that church.

 

[hedrick]

It's really hard to know what to do with a Church that is divided about evenly. This isn't the first time. There have been several past divisions, the Old Side / New Side, slavery, the conservative / liberal issues in the early 20th Cent, and now this.

Historically, we've chosen to make statements in the Confessions, and then allow ordaining bodies to apply them to individual candidates. Since the original adopting act in 1729, Sessions have had to judge how serious they think departures are.

The insertion of G-6.0106b was actually a departure from tradition. 54% didn't want to allow Sessions the ability to judge whether certain departures were essential tenets of the Reformed Faith, because they disagreed with how certain Sessions would decide.

The change actually didn't work that well: In 2008 the GA issued an Authoritative Interpretation saying that since no one had bothered to remove G-6.0108, in fact ordaining bodies could still decide whether or not to accept a given departure. Hence G-6.0106b has been inoperative for its original purpose for 3 years.

If you think sexual purity, and specifically homosexuality, should be treated differently from anything else, you'll obviously not like the recent action. Given that purity wasn't high on Jesus' priority list, that seems like an odd decision to me. But there are certainly people who feel that way. But the current approach is really consistent with how we've often tried to handle things in the past. Now past efforts haven't always worked. We split, to one extent or another, based on all of the issues I listed above. But it's not an unreasonable attempt to make, given the way the Presbyterian Church has worked historically.

Remember that we've never been quite as centralized as the Catholic Church. We have confessions, but every court of the Church, including Sessions, is expected to do theology, and they are permitted to interpret Scripture for themselves. Of course they're supposed to work within the common tradition, and higher bodies can do something if they depart too seriously. That's our attempt to find a middle ground between congregationalism and the Catholic Church. Generally I think it works fairly well. However in this case the "common" tradition is itself split. In theory that's not supposed to happen. A confessional church depends upon a common confessional tradition. But if we're going to coexist, we're going to have individuals and groups aligning either with one of the other variant.

 

[RisingSpirit]

clipped----------------
If you think sexual purity, and specifically homosexuality, should be treated differently from anything else, you'll obviously not like the recent action. Given that purity wasn't high on Jesus' priority list, that seems like an odd decision to me. But there are certainly people who feel that way. But the current approach is really consistent with how we've often tried to handle things in the past. Now past efforts haven't always worked. We split, to one extent or another, based on all of the issues I listed above. But it's not an unreasonable attempt to make, given the way the Presbyterian Church has worked historically.
clipped---------------------------

If we're going to relax social behavour then We should also allow Polygamy or Group marriage. This allows adultery and in turn provides children and child care.
Homosexuality doesn't seem to fit in the above groups unless a same sex couple adopts children and care for them, together.

What any of the above do in privacy are probably up to them and God.

To promote same sex social behavior is the same as promoting adultery and multiple wives or perhaps multiple husbands.

Perhaps marriage should be restricted only to those that bare children.

 

[Scottish Knight]

Something similar is taking place in the Church of Scotland too.

"
The Church of Scotland has voted to allow the possible selection of gay and lesbian ministers in the future.
The controversial issue was being debated at the Kirk's General Assembly.
A theological commission will now be set up and will report in 2013 before a final decision on the issue of gay ordination is taken.
Earlier the Assembly voted to accept gay and lesbian clergy provided they had declared their sexuality and were ordained before 2009.
Two years ago, the Reverend Scott Rennie's appointment to Queen's Cross Church in Aberdeen threatened to split the Church."

BBC News - Church of Scotland votes on gay ministers

Two ministers have already resigned:


Mr Coghill informed his congregation on Sunday that "in the light of the General Assembly's decision it is with the utmost sorrow and heartfelt grief" he would demit his charge at Leurbost Church in Lochs, Lewis, where he has served for nearly 20 years.

He said he would quit at the end of August, explaining his conscience would not allow him to stay in the Church after it departed from biblical teachings.

Mr Coghill said: "The Cross is not simply to be preached, it is to be lived.

"I do not expect, encourage or require that any of you should follow me out of the Church of Scotland, for I have nowhere to lead you, and I do not know the direction of my own future.

"I know only that whilst many good, godly and devout Christian men and women will continue within the fold of the Church of Scotland, I personally cannot continue to serve a Church which as an institution, has chosen its own gods, and departed from the God of the Bible, whatever words may be used to contrary.

Mr Coghill is the second minister to say he intended to leave over the decision.

Last week, the Rev Roddy MacRae announced that he was of a mind to leave. Mr MacRae, The minister of Glenelg and Kintail said the Kirk had "capitulated to society".
Second minister reveals he will quit Kirk over gay clergy controversy - Scotsman.com

 

[Jim the Puritan]

Here is a new resource page for those refusing to accept PCUSA's rejection of the authority of scripture and its acceptance of sexual immorality, impurity and unchastity in the church:

The Layman Online

 

[RisingSpirit]

Here is a new resource page for those refusing to accept PCUSA's rejection of the authority of scripture and its acceptance of sexual immorality, impurity and unchastity in the church:

The Layman Online

I remember a while back, not long ago, the Episcopalians split up in two. Did that happen? Can you tell us a little about that church and it's divisions.
Perhaps we can learn from them.

 

[kenrapoza]

There have been several movements withing the Episcopal church in reaction to it's radical liberal trajectory. One of them has been a group that split off to form a conservative Anglican denomination (the Anglican Church in North America), another has been many Episcopalian congregations realigning with other conservative diocese (such as in Nigeria). There have also been some other confessing/realignment groups withing Anglicanism.

 

[RisingSpirit]

Here is a new resource page for those refusing to accept PCUSA's rejection of the authority of scripture and its acceptance of sexual immorality, impurity and unchastity in the church:

The Layman Online

I read some comments in the link above. Mixed reviews. My review is that some divorced ministers may not understand their own divorced situation, meaning that both divorced partner may not understand exactly the cause of the break up and come up with agreements that is understood. Some divorced minister may be preaching at the pulpit without fully understanding the requirement of the divorce as explained in plain view in the Bible.

Misunderstood-divorced minister may be equivalent to a mixed up gay pastor.

 

[hedrick]

Here is a new resource page for those refusing to accept PCUSA's rejection of the authority of scripture and its acceptance of sexual immorality, impurity and unchastity in the church:

The Layman Online

If you're going to read the Layman, by far the most interesting piece they have published on this topic is the following: The Layman Online

 

[RisingSpirit]

Leaving PCUSA?

So, what legal rights does a group of Christians have to keep the name, PCUSA or PCA? I mean is it illegal to start a church and named it PCUSA or PCA? What can the mainline denomination do to stop groups of Christians from naming themselves in such way?

We can't create a drink and name it CocaCola(TM) due to laws of the land but do the laws apply to churches under separation of state and church?

 

[SirGav1n]

If churches are leaving the PCUSA what does that mean for the parishioners? Will they end up leaving the Presbyterian church or possibly Christianity totally? That's the fear I have and makes think how my church will respond to this decision

 

[kenrapoza]

Well, if a church leaves the PC(USA) it's typically because that is what the parishioners wanted, so they would tend to stay with the church. The ones who disagree with the move would probably go to another PC(USA) congregation if they can.

 

[hedrick]

If churches are leaving the PCUSA what does that mean for the parishioners? Will they end up leaving the Presbyterian church or possibly Christianity totally? That's the fear I have and makes think how my church will respond to this decision

The churches that leave are typically going to another Presbyterian denomination. The problem is with members who aren't happy with the move out of the PCUSA, but when there's a split like this, there's no way to serve everyone equally. Normally a church that does this has been visibly evangelical for years, so it's hard to believe that many people will be upset.

 

[RisingSpirit]

clipped ------------------
Remember that we've never been quite as centralized as the Catholic Church. We have confessions, but every court of the Church, including Sessions, is expected to do theology, and they are permitted to interpret Scripture for themselves. Of course they're supposed to work within the common tradition, and higher bodies can do something if they depart too seriously.

I've been thinking about what you said on confessions. I just now looked up Westminster creeds that the elders of PCA must refer to as standards. I was wondering why such a commitment to that particular creed like it never should change. While searching and looking deeper into that creed, I noticed the creeds states that the Pope is anti-Christ. With that being said, I do believe creeds can and should be changed or updated.
How does the PCA look into changing and modifying the Westminster creeds? Is it acceptable?
I believe Hedrick explained that the old creeds might be based on the culture at the time it was written and probably outdated, today, in our time.

 

[RisingSpirit]

The churches that leave are typically going to another Presbyterian denomination. The problem is with members who aren't happy with the move out of the PCUSA, but when there's a split like this, there's no way to serve everyone equally. Normally a church that does this has been visibly evangelical for years, so it's hard to believe that many people will be upset.

I believe that I'm reading the new changes in the PCUSA book of order mean that anyone happy to serve the Lord may be happy to preach as a minister of that particular church. I don't read it as applying to the homosexuals, only. I read it as it, also, applies to pastors that have girlfriends and not yet married or pastors committing adultery with no way to correct their status and continues to preach at the pulpit or even know what adultery is.
The new book of order said, anyone happy to share the Word. Even though the changes was based on the ordaining homosexuals, I see the change applying to anyone.
Example: My father divorced my mom and remarried and should be free to preach. How would this be different from anyone's or any sex or same sex's sins?

 

[hedrick]

I believe that I'm reading the new changes in the PCUSA book of order mean that anyone happy to serve the Lord may be happy to preach as a minister of that particular church. I don't read it as applying to the homosexuals, only. I read it as it, also, applies to pastors that have girlfriends and not yet married or pastors committing adultery with no way to correct their status and continues to preach at the pulpit or even know what adultery is.
The new book of order said, anyone happy to share the Word. Even though the changes was based on the ordaining homosexuals, I see the change applying to anyone.
Example: My father divorced my mom and remarried and should be free to preach. How would this be different from anyone's or any sex or same sex's sins?

You're looking at only part of the rules. The primary standards are Scripture and the confessions, and those haven't changed. Historically, the PCUSA has given sessions and Presbyteries a fair amount of discretion in applying the standards. No candidate is free of sin, so we have to judge whether a given candidate's publicly visible sins are serious enough to disqualify them.

I believe most ordaining bodies would accept divorcees in some situation. I think few ordaining bodies would accept adulters. On homosexuality there is a split as to whether it's a problem.

What hasn't changed are the basic standards, Scripture and the confessions, and the fact that ordaining bodies have to decide how to apply them to individual candidates.

What changed is a paragraph in which there was an attempt to remove certain sexual sins from this usual process. That attempt was never seriously enforced except for homosexuality, and since 2008 it wasn't enforced even for homosexuality. It has throughout its life maybe stopped ordination of 2 homosexuals.

So removal of the paragraph doesn't change the basic approach. It changes one attempt at preventing prebyteries from making what some thought were bad decisions. With the paragraph gone we're back at depending upon the good judgement of ordaining bodies. But mostly we were dependent upon that anyway. The paragraph really had limited effect.

 

[Jim the Puritan]

I think what is going to happen initially is that complaints will continue to be filed against presbyteries or sessions that attempt to ordain practicing homosexuals, adulterers, and other candidates engaged in sexually immoral behavior.

Nothing in the new non standard authorizes a departure from the requirements of Scripture and the Confessions, which specifically condemn sexual immorality, including homosexual sex.

We need to call PCUSA to account as to whether they are explicitly going to reject the authority of Scripture and the Confessions. They can't just pretend to sweep it under the carpet.