PCUSA ministers, elders and deacons begin renouncing ordinations

[Jim the Puritan]

The Layman Online

An act of conscience: Setting
aside my PCUSA ordination

Commentary by Carmen Fowler LaBerge, The Layman, Posted Monday, July 11, 2011
The adoption of the new Form of Government and the elimination of all explicit standards of sexual behavior for church leaders require that each ordained officer in the Presbyterian Church (USA) reconsider their vows.

As ordinations and installations are acts of one church council on behalf of the whole church, a person ordained by any presbytery is recognized as ordained by all others. Further, reading G-2.0102, when any congregation ordains a ruling elder, that person becomes as equally eligible to serve at all levels of Presbyterian governance as every ordained teaching elder. They have equal standing not only at presbytery meetings, but throughout our church governance structure. The result is that the local option of ordination standards exercised by one session extends effectively to all others through those whom it chooses to ordain.

When I was ordained, in 1993, I gave an affirmative and unqualified answer to the vows taken by all church officers in the PCUSA. Over the years, each time I have been installed to a position of ministry, I have seriously reconsidered and then joyfully re-affirmed those vows. Until today.

As a result of the adoption of the new Form of Government and the passage of Amendment 10A, I find myself confronting a profound crisis of conscience, which has prayerfully led to the following conclusions:

It is now clear to me that although we are using the same words, we do not share an understanding of those words. Further, although we may be ordained in the same institutional church, the PCUSA, we do not actually share nor are we actively leading others into the “one faith” espoused in the Scriptures (Ephesians 4:3-6). The result is that although we claim unity, we have none. And because we do share the unity of the Spirit, we are not experiencing the bond of peace.

It is now clear to me that when I vow to submit to Jesus as Lord and to the Bible as God’s Word, I am not saying the same thing that others are saying. I agree with the confessions that the Bible is the infallible rule for faith and life and I disagree that it is but one reference point among many to a knowledge of the will of God.

It is now clear to me that when I vow to receive, adopt, rely on and teach the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions of our church, I do not have the same essentials in mind that others receive, adopt, rely on and teach.

It is now clear to me that when I vow to fulfill my office in obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture, and to be continually guided by our confessions, I am working with a different concept of obedience, submission, authority and guidance than the dominant progressive culture.

It is now clear to me that when I vow to seek to follow the Lord Jesus Christ in my own life, I am committing to a manner of life in conformity with God’s demands for holiness, continually being transformed by one degree of glory to another by the active presence of the Holy Spirit within me. And it is clear that manner of life departs at significant points from the culturally accommodating manners of life our denomination is now seeking to promote.

It is now clear to me that when I vow to further the peace, unity and purity of Christ’s Church, I find the definition and fulfillment of those realities in the Church universal and within our denomination as a derivative part thereof. Where the denomination severs herself from Christ, she sacrifices her unity to the whole Church, her purity as a part of Christ’s unblemished Bride and has no hope of experiencing authentic peace.

When I vow to be governed by our church’s polity I must now submit to the new Form of Government. This is not a polity in which I was examined nor with which I have lived. It is not yet clear to me what the polity of our church actually is under the nFOG and I therefore cannot in good conscience vow to be governed by it.

As to the question of working with colleagues in ministry subject to the ordering of God’s Word and Spirit, conscience requires that I raise a specific scruple. My conscience being bound by the revealed Word of God in the Bible, I cannot affirm the ordination nor installation of any officer who refuses to subordinate their own proclivities and desires to the demonstrated will and desire of God for His people to be holy.

Yes, we are all sinners and we all fall short of the glory of God. However, we are not unregenerate. By faith, the very righteousness of Jesus the Christ, through His sacrificial atoning death upon the cross and His glorious bodily resurrection, is imputed to us. We stand before God as sinners, confessing our desperate need and confessing our faith in an all sufficient Savior. Salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. We die to self and we live for Christ, in Christ and unto Christ, now and forevermore.

I will not participate actively nor passively as any presbytery or congregation within the PCUSA ordains or installs anyone who persists in behavior defined by the Bible as sin. As one who knows God’s righteous decrees I cannot approve of those who do not practice them and thereby place myself under the same condemnation (Romans 1).

Recognizing that this stand puts me at variance with the PCUSA, I know not what else to do but to set aside my ordination until my denomination repents of its corporate sin and returns to a shared standard of ordination aligned with the Scriptures. When the PCUSA changes its position on this matter, I look forward to the reinstatement of my ordination.

Until then, I will joyfully serve as your sister in Christ in the PCUSA without the benefit of institutional ordination credentials and without the burden of a denomination’s corporate guilt. I hereby humbly set aside my ordination as a matter of conscience before the Lord.

Carmen Fowler LaBerge is president of the Presbyterian Lay Committee and executive editor of its publications.

 

[hedrick]

I sure hope she don't go to the PCA. I checked their Book of Order. It doesn't have an equivalent of G-6.0106b in it either.

Ooops. She can't go to the PCA, since she is (was) a female pastor. Selective literalness, I guess.

 

[flightofsevens]

Correct me if i'm wrong... but she was a leading Elder in her congregation, who had a huge problem with the PCUSA and their liberal decision of accecptance and ordination of gays.

I guess it really is selective literal-ness. Who knew the Bible says nothing of women being in leadership? *shakes head*

 

[bbbbbbb]

I also read the article in the Layman by Carmen Fowler. She once observed that the liberals in the PCUSA gansh their teeth at the fundamentalists and conservatives in the PCUSA, not realizing that those folks left decades ago so that the only opposition to the liberals left are those who are moderate in their theology or even moderately liberal. I would definitely place her as moderate in her theology. As such, I can understand her stance following the recent actions by the General Assembly. I suspect the turmoil within the remaining moderates will result in a much larger decline in membership this coming year than the 61,000+ delcine this past year.

 

[hedrick]

I also read the article in the Layman by Carmen Fowler. She once observed that the liberals in the PCUSA gansh their teeth at the fundamentalists and conservatives in the PCUSA, not realizing that those folks left decades ago so that the only opposition to the liberals left are those who are moderate in their theology or even moderately liberal. I would definitely place her as moderate in her theology. As such, I can understand her stance following the recent actions by the General Assembly. I suspect the turmoil within the remaining moderates will result in a much larger decline in membership this coming year than the 61,000+ delcine this past year.

I agree in part and disagree in part. There aren't a lot of real fundamentalists left. One of the oddities with this is that the folks who accept gay leaders and those who don't are often pretty similar in the rest of their theology. Hence my observation that Fowler herself wouldn't fit into a conservative church. A real conservative won't accept ordination of women.

So where I disagree is the implication of your posting that you can characterize folks who object to gays as moderate in contrast with those are accepting, who presumably aren't.

But people can't be characterized along a single axis. I simply don't think it's the case that accepting people are somehow all radical. In our own church I once got in trouble with a parent for saying something about homosexuality in Sunday School class (7th and 8th grade). It turns out she was worried that I might have called them sinners. But unless she's changed recently, she is a creationist. The folks I know who are accepting just aren't particularly radical.

However I agree with you that there will be some effect on membership. How much is debatable. It's been obvious for some time that this was going to happen. Indeed G-6.0106b was passed in the first place partly because it was obvious that the GA was about to become accepting, and people wanted to lock their position into the constitution for a few years. In fact the change this year actually had almost no effect. The GA had passed an authoritative interpretation a couple of years ago that actually made G-6.0106b have no effect. So the recent change was more symbolic than real. But symbols matter to people.

 

[Jim the Puritan]

I agree in part and disagree in part. There aren't a lot of real fundamentalists left. One of the oddities with this is that the folks who accept gay leaders and those who don't are often pretty similar in the rest of their theology. Hence my observation that Fowler herself wouldn't fit into a conservative church. A real conservative won't accept ordination of women.

So where I disagree is the implication of your posting that you can characterize folks who object to gays as moderate in contrast with those are accepting, who presumably aren't.

But people can't be characterized along a single axis. I simply don't think it's the case that accepting people are somehow all radical. In our own church I once got in trouble with a parent for saying something about homosexuality in Sunday School class (7th and 8th grade). It turns out she was worried that I might have called them sinners. But unless she's changed recently, she is a creationist. The folks I know who are accepting just aren't particularly radical.

However I agree with you that there will be some effect on membership. How much is debatable. It's been obvious for some time that this was going to happen. Indeed G-6.0106b was passed in the first place partly because it was obvious that the GA was about to become accepting, and people wanted to lock their position into the constitution for a few years. In fact the change this year actually had almost no effect. The GA had passed an authoritative interpretation a couple of years ago that actually made G-6.0106b have no effect. So the recent change was more symbolic than real. But symbols matter to people.

Well, no, actually the effects are dramatic, because the change was not just about those engaged in homosexual acts now being qualified to be ordained, but also to allow ordination of persons engaged in adultery or fornication. That's a no go for many churches and presbyteries in PCUSA, apart from the homosexual ordination issue. Many churches who are ok with women's ordination are still going to reject PCUSA's removal of the sexual purity requirements of scripture. Fowler is a good example of that.

So what is going on right now is an informal division of PCUSA into two parts, as sessions and presbyteries who reject the new non-standards are reenacting the fidelity and chastity requirements for their churches and presbyteries. The result is that within 12-24 months time you will have two churches, one of which adheres to Biblical standards and the other which does not. Whether or not there is a formal schism, my suspicion is over time they will have little to do with each other, since whether or not you believe in sexual purity is also part and parcel of other non-negotiable issues such as your belief in Scripture, the nature of marriage, salvation, sin, etc.

Of course, the other issue is how many churches and presbyteries over time will simply leave the denomination. But I think there has been a realization over the past month or so that the same change in the Book of Order that allows non-repentant homosexuals to be ordained if their local presbyery is ok with it, also allows local option to totally reject the changes. So my read at this point it the liberals have unwittingly cut their own throats, because the majority of the church is just going to wall themselves off from the "progressive" segment of the church and become a church within a church, and probably stop supporting the national denomination so long as it follows the liberal course.

So "PCUSA" is probably going to become an empty administrative shell, while the moderate and evangelical churches form a new denomination within a denomination. The liberal churches will be left to themselves, but most of those are aging and losing members rapidly. Embracing homosexuality is not going to help them, as we've seen in the case of the Episcopal Church, which has seen huge numbers of people depart since they embraced the homosexual agenda. Most of their dioceses are in serious financial trouble and this point and having to shut down substantial numbers of empty parishes. I know right in my area, six Episcopal parishes, including the cathedral, can no longer fund rectors / a dean for their churches.

 

[hedrick]

Well, no, actually the effects are dramatic, because the change was not just about those engaged in homosexual acts now being qualified to be ordained, but also to allow ordination of persons engaged in adultery or fornication. That's a no go for many churches and presbyteries in PCUSA, apart from the homosexual ordination issue. Many churches who are ok with women's ordination are still going to reject PCUSA's removal of the sexual purity requirements of scripture. Fowler is a good example of that.

The PCA doesn't have any more in its section on ordination about sexual practice than the PCUSA does after removing G-6.0106b, and the PCUSA didn't 15 years ago before it was added.

The primary standard for both of us is Scripture. G-6.0106b was in some sense redundant, but since people disagreed on how to use Scripture, it did in fact have an effect on what actually happened. But that effect was limited to homosexuality. There were no cases brought under it (as far as I know, and I think I would) about other sexual issues. So it had no effect. That means that removing it will have no effect.

Now it's certainly true that not all congregations will strictly enforce standards against fornication, but they didn't before. I doubt that many churches would have put up with a pastor living with someone to whom he wasn't married before, and they won't now. I think enforcement for elders was less consistent, and it still will be. But there's been no change in views on this topic, as far as I know. Removing G-6.0106b is important symbolically because a number of congregations wanted to ordain gays, and it stopped them. But there's simply no indication that it was ever intended to or did affect the approach to fornication, or that its removal was ever intended to say anything on that subject.

I listened to the debate in the GA when it was originally passed. It was about homosexuality. The broader language was adopted at the last minute without much thought because it made it sound better. My concern is that this issue is being manufactured by people who are hostile to the direction that the PCUSA is going, even though it's not real. There are certainly real disagreements within the PCUSA. That is going to lead to churches leaving. But I'd like them to leave, if they do, for real reasons, and not because they think something is happening that is not.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The PCA doesn't have any more in its section on ordination about sexual practice than the PCUSA does after removing G-6.0106b, and the PCUSA didn't 15 years ago before it was added.

The primary standard for both of us is Scripture. G-6.0106b was in some sense redundant, but since people disagreed on how to use Scripture, it did in fact have an effect on what actually happened. But that effect was limited to homosexuality. There were no cases brought under it (as far as I know, and I think I would) about other sexual issues. So it had no effect. That means that removing it will have no effect.

Now it's certainly true that not all congregations will strictly enforce standards against fornication, but they didn't before. I doubt that many churches would have put up with a pastor living with someone to whom he wasn't married before, and they won't now. I think enforcement for elders was less consistent, and it still will be. But there's been no change in views on this topic, as far as I know. Removing G-6.0106b is important symbolically because a number of congregations wanted to ordain gays, and it stopped them. But there's simply no indication that it was ever intended to or did affect the approach to fornication, or that its removal was ever intended to say anything on that subject.

I listened to the debate in the GA when it was originally passed. It was about homosexuality. The broader language was adopted at the last minute without much thought because it made it sound better. My concern is that this issue is being manufactured by people who are hostile to the direction that the PCUSA is going, even though it's not real. There are certainly real disagreements within the PCUSA. That is going to lead to churches leaving. But I'd like them to leave, if they do, for real reasons, and not because they think something is happening that is not.

I think that if one chooses to leave the PCUSA or if a church en masse chooses to leave it ought to be for "real" reasons, as you said. If there is a departure it ought to be done decently and in order. The difficulty over the past thirty years has been that, in the majority of cases although not at all in every case, there have been conflicting circumstances regarding the departure of churches. In general there seem to have been four types of departure, as follow:

1. Antagonistic. Typically, this type of departure has been where the presbytery, aided and abetted by Louisville, has striven mightily to keep the church in the denomination and to retain its property for the PCUSA. In their efforts to do so they have attempted to find the "true" church (i.e. a body of membership which is loyal to the PCUSA). In some early cases the result has been churches with no members whatsoever, but the physical infrastructure of the former churches. This is the case of a former church which is about one mile from my home.
2. Bargaining. In many cases departing churches have bargained with the presbytery for ownership of the physical infrastructure. Realizing that if they end up with the physical infrastructure, the presbytery will be hard-pressed to maintain and/or sell the property, the incentive to sell it back to the departing church is viewed as a win-win situation for both parties. As a result, typically the property is purchased by the departing body, usually at a discount to its actual value.
3. Previously negotiated departure. When the Southern Presbyterian Church merged with the former Northern Presbyterian Church the Southern Presbyterian churches were given a limited time frame during which they could depart the denomination with their property intact. Many did so during that time period.
4. Departure without penalty. A handful of churches have left the PCUSA by mutual agreement and without any penalty or payment. One example is the Third Presbyterian Church in Dubuque, Iowa.

This begs the question, of course, as to what actually constitutes a "real" reason for departing. In my own personal life I had the following reasons for leaving the PCUSA:

1. Universalism. The church in which I was raised, although giving lip service to the Confessions, had a clergy which preached a consistent message of universal salvation for all mankind.
2. Denial of sin. This was true in my home church and in most other PCUSA churches I have attended. After moving to my present city I visited a PCUSA church here three times. On one visit the minister agonized during his entire sermon over whether or not there could be sin or evil in this world before concluding that sin does exist because George W. Bush was President of the United States.
3. Denial of the person and work of Jesus Christ. I remember one particularly telling Easter sermon at a very large PCUSA church with a full audience in which the minister likened the resurrection of Jesus Christ to the myth of Camelot, concluding that one can "hang your hat" on any suitable myth, whether it is the resurrection of Jesus Christ or Camelot.

I could add more to this list, but I found those to be "real" reasons for leaving. If they had been limited to one church only I probably would have merely sought out a church that did not have these issues; however, I found them to be extremely common in the vast majority of PCUSA churches that I attended.

 

[hedrick]

This begs the question, of course, as to what actually constitutes a "real" reason for departing. In my own personal life I had the following reasons for leaving the PCUSA:

I probably wouldn't be interested in a congregation of the sort you describe either. Ours isn't, and we're not a particularly conservative congregation.

 

[RisingSpirit]

Well, no, actually the effects are dramatic, because the change was not just about those engaged in homosexual acts now being qualified to be ordained, but also to allow ordination of persons engaged in adultery or fornication.

I was reading a topic elsewhere on this forum and one post caught my surprise. I think I recalled that a certain branch of Lutheran Church do not allow ordination to those that are divorced. I wanted to follow up on that post but I'd like to bring this up here. There is a line drawn between those that are divorce and those that are not. Divorce is a neverending topic so lets not drag this one on. My question, here, and how do churches find that line in the sand and draw it? Where do we draw the line on the fornication part when we live in a world of high living expenses while it's cheaper to live together and much cheaper to buy one bed instead of two. I'm not buying the claims of conservative churches knowing where to draw the line of acceptable social behavior and it's qualifications of ordination. I'm not gay but my sin lies elsewhere and think the sins are that same as all sinner's sins.

Strange old historical fact on a pope being a women decades ago was interesting. Perhaps PCUSA is the solution to hose that are not sure of their sexual preferences such as being a female or male. The stranger episode of Oprah was the interview with a human being that was born with neither female or male genitals. Personally, I couldn't tell the sex. The PCUSA might be better off not making the final law like the conservatives do. I was told, "When in doubt, don't do it." I believe it's better not to draw the line in the sand where pleases conservative mankind.

 

[RisingSpirit]

I listened to the debate in the GA when it was originally passed. It was about homosexuality.

Are there a transcript of those debates?

 

[hedrick]

There have been various splits and reunifications. The "defunct" church is another church whose name was the same as the current one, and which eventually became (part of) the new one. They explain the history in the notes. The current PCUSA is listed in the section above that. Technically the current church should be listed as the PC(USA), although PCUSA is commonly used.

 

[hedrick]

Are there a transcript of those debates?

As far as I know, the only thing official is the minutes, but I would think it would have been recorded. I have no idea how you'd find a copy.

However the following document details the whole history of this controversy in excessive detail: http://upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/available/etd-07042009-213526/unrestricted/05chapter5.pdf. This posting is based on that document.

The section on the 1997 GA debate differs from my memory, in that the current wording is present in the overture, except that the initial overture would have prohibited ordination of divorced people who remarried, by careless use of the language. That was fixed by an amendment. However it agrees that all the discussion was in terms of homosexuality:

"The advocates of this amendment, who claim it also applied to all who were married or single, was undone by the ACOHS’ wording:
....
There is no doubt in this writer’s mind that the intent of amending G-6.0106 by adding a “b” portion was clear; namely, to keep partnered gay and lesbian Christians from ordained office. In the whole Preamble, there was not a single word that this amendment would apply to heterosexuals."

(ACOHS is Assembly Committee on Ordination and Human Sexuality)

Interestingly, previous attempts at amendment had used celibacy, while G-6.0106b changed it to chastity. Technically there is a difference. It's a bit unclear whether the intent was to soften the wording. In principle chastity simply means moral sexual relations, while celibate is more explicit. However it was clear in context what was meant, and it's been enforced as prohibiting sexual relations between gays.

The stated clerk's official letter after passage talked about the meaning of "chastity," saying

"The words are not defined. Examining bodies will need to consider reasonable definitions and decide which to apply. Ambiguity is not necessarily a barrier to applying a rule to specific circumstances. An example of a familiar ambiguous term which has broad and differing applications in the church is “acceptable” in G-14.0401 in reference to what is a call for ministry that qualifies for ordination. From a polity point of view the interpretative problem is the same."

Again, it's likely that this was a result of unclear wording, since the intent was clearly to ban active gays. However some sessions and presbyteries did interpret the new statement as permitting ordination of some gays.

Incidentally, the actual effect of G-6.0106b was limited to producing test cases. It was irrelevant in normal practice because of two policies (1) it only applies to self-disclosed activity. It is generally not appropriate for an ordaining body to ask someone about their sexuality, (2) any appeal has to be done after a body makes a decision but before the ordination, because the GAPJC has ruled that once someone has been ordained, the ordination cannot be set aside by an appeal. (It could, of course, be handled by a disciplinary case, but to my knowledge that's never been done.)

If one set out to devise a provision that would produce the most possible conflict and ill will with the minimum actual impact on what is done, G-6.0106b as interpreted would be pretty close. Its repeal has produced more damage, as the current conflict shows. And it was obvious when it was passed that it would be repealed in the future. (By the way, I think this is supporting evidence for the suggestion the constitutional changes should require a 2/3 majority.)

FYI, the impact of the repeal is still not clear. One of the 2 or so people actually affected by G-6.010Gb is Lisa Larges. Her presbytery tried again to ordain her. It was appealed to the GAPJC. They ruled that the synod PJC who handled the first level of appeal had not properly heard the theological arguments. The mere fact that G-6.0106b is not present doesn't change the fact that Scripture and the confessions are our standards, and the SPJC should have dealt with the claim that Spahr's ordination was in violation of Scripture and the confessions. The implication seems to be that the GAPJC will also make a ruling on the implications of Scripture on this topic, although someone who heard their verbal comments say that it is unlikely that they will accept another appeal of this case should the synod PJC find the ordination acceptable. Personally I think this ruling is remarkable. The PJC's are generally lawyers, who concentrate on procedure. It is up to the presbyteries, synods, and GA to make theological decisions. That's the way the GAPJC normally acts. Normally the PJC's defer to the main bodies' theological decisions.

 

[hedrick]

I was reading a topic elsewhere on this forum and one post caught my surprise. I think I recalled that a certain branch of Lutheran Church do not allow ordination to those that are divorced. I wanted to follow up on that post but I'd like to bring this up here. There is a line drawn between those that are divorce and those that are not. Divorce is a neverending topic so lets not drag this one on. My question, here, and how do churches find that line in the sand and draw it? Where do we draw the line on the fornication part when we live in a world of high living expenses while it's cheaper to live together and much cheaper to buy one bed instead of two. I'm not buying the claims of conservative churches knowing where to draw the line of acceptable social behavior and it's qualifications of ordination. I'm not gay but my sin lies elsewhere and think the sins are that same as all sinner's sins.

Strange old historical fact on a pope being a women decades ago was interesting. Perhaps PCUSA is the solution to hose that are not sure of their sexual preferences such as being a female or male. The stranger episode of Oprah was the interview with a human being that was born with neither female or male genitals. Personally, I couldn't tell the sex. The PCUSA might be better off not making the final law like the conservatives do. I was told, "When in doubt, don't do it." I believe it's better not to draw the line in the sand where pleases conservative mankind.

If you're asking about the PCUSA, I believe in principle we don't do bright lines. The problem with bright lines is that anyplace you put the line leads to trouble. We understand that everyone sins, so we can't demand perfection. But we don't want to state that certain things are fatal for ordination and certain don't matter. That has both theological and practical dangers. Hence the whole American Presbyterian tradition is that ordination decisions are made on the overall character and witness of a person. We do not expect to see perfect candidates, but we do expect them to reflect the Gospel. We do not approve of divorce, but recognize that it is sometimes a lesser of evils. We also see marriage as the intended context for sex, but we don't apply this legalistically.

G-6.0106b was an attempt to draw a bright line. But it pretty clearly failed. No one could possibly take it seriously. It prohibited ordaining anyone who acknowledged a sin for which they didn't repent. Depending upon your reading, this is either meaningless or breathtakingly broad. I am overweight. I acknowledge that I'm guilty of something, whether sloth or something else is a bit unclear, but something. Technically G-6.0106b should have prohibited ordaining me. But of course no one would really apply it that way. It worked only because in practice ordaining bodies only applied it to sins that they thought compromised the overall witness of the person. And to homosexuality, because everyone knows that's what the real target was.

But I challenge you to come up with a better way of doing a bright line in a reasonably general way. I think the only thing you could really do is make decisions on specific situations. E.g. one could with complete logic say "homosexuality is such a serious sin that non active homosexual should be ordained." And one could do that for any sins that we thought were uniformly so harmful to the witness of the Church that they should not be permitted. The right way to do it would be via specific GA decisions, which is in fact the approach that was taken to homosexuality up to 1996. I believe that's the approach that the PCA has used in a few situations where they wanted to make specific decisions. This kind of judgement doesn't belong in the constitution. But except for this one episode, the PCUSA has not had specific unforgiveable sins. And I think that's right.

 

[RisingSpirit]

But I challenge you to come up with a better way of doing a bright line in a reasonably general way. I think the only thing you could really do is make decisions on specific situations. E.g. one could with complete logic say "homosexuality is such a serious sin that non active homosexual should be ordained." And one could do that for any sins that we thought were uniformly so harmful to the witness of the Church that they should not be permitted. The right way to do it would be via specific GA decisions, which is in fact the approach that was taken to homosexuality up to 1996. I believe that's the approach that the PCA has used in a few situations where they wanted to make specific decisions. This kind of judgement doesn't belong in the constitution. But except for this one episode, the PCUSA has not had specific unforgiveable sins. And I think that's right.

I guess "voting results" is the bright line. Even Politics can't define what the bright line means. Lines can always be bold and thick or curvy. What I see regarding to non active is that some same sex friendship each may have their own bedroom and may not be interested in perverted sex. The world may view gays to other way. I think most Christian Gays are not that interested in playing in the bedroom or at least look at it as no big deal. Some are strong enough to stay focused on God's Word.

My biggest concern is that a Gay Minister might be more focused on bring more Gays in office. That seem to happen at my workplace where a liberal boss hires gay workers. So many divisions in workforce communications that distract us from getting the job done. I seen my friends go to the personal and come back with a different personalty. Earlier, they refused to print hundreds or posters supporting Gay pride parades while their priority was to get other jobs that needed to get done. One gay guy marched in our department and flicked off our Gospel radio and quickly walked out. He was given authority by the "freedom" bosses to do so. I think some got tired of listening to Christians bashing on Gays on radios on the other side of thin walls in a multi-cubical environment.

We did a good job ridding cigarettes from public environment.

 

[Jim the Puritan]

Since homosexuals are in complete bondage to the sin of homosexuality and not following the will of God, if they get into ministry they invariably are simply interested in promoting the sin of homosexuality, not the Gospel. There are hundreds of examples of that in the liberal churches, from the homosexual Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire to homosexual activist Janet Edwards in the PCUSA.

 

[RisingSpirit]

Since homosexuals are in complete bondage to the sin of homosexuality and not following the will of God, if they get into ministry they invariably are simply interested in promoting the sin of homosexuality, not the Gospel. There are hundreds of examples of that in the liberal churches, from the homosexual Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire to homosexual activist Janet Edwards in the PCUSA.

With a Calvinist flag in your profile, would you agree that all things happen according to God's Will? Instead of debating Calvinism and Arminianism, could we all agree that we must discover the gift of Faith. Without knowing the future, we could observe God's Will as being His Own.

Some Homosexuals or adulterers claim that they're called by God to preach. I think the new addition in the Book of Order might mean we may need to take another look at our own sins and how it compares to those we don't understand.

I don't understand why God called certain Homosexuals to minster and maybe I should mind my own business. The church is the body of Christ. Most think that a gathering in a tall building should only contain Christians and call it a church.

Beats me to hear some say everything is Willed by God and at the same time the same people claim it isn't God's Will.

Which is it?

 

[Jim the Puritan]

With a Calvinist flag in your profile, would you agree that all things happen according to God's Will? Instead of debating Calvinism and Arminianism, could we all agree that we must discover the gift of Faith. Without knowing the future, we could observe God's Will as being His Own. Some Homosexuals or adulterers claim that they're called by God to preach. I think the new addition in the Book of Order might mean we may need to take another look at our own sins and how it compares to those we don't understand.

I don't understand why God called certain Homosexuals to minster and maybe I should mind my own business. The church is the body of Christ. Most think that a gathering in a tall building should only contain Christians and call it a church.

Beats me to hear some say everything is Willed by God and at the same time the same people claim it isn't God's Will.

Which is it?

Under your analysis, someone who is a pedophile, a murderer or other type of sinner should also be permitted to become a minister because their sinful nature is somehow "willed by God." Of course it isn't. Such actions are the result of our rebellion against God, which started in the Garden.

The problem is that Scripture says in black and white that practicing homosexuals and others unrepentantly engaging in sexual sin cannot be part of the Kingdom of God and do not have the Holy Spirit. (Ephesians 5; I Thessalonians 4; Galatians 5; I Timothy 1; Revelation 9 and a number of others) Whatever other sins there are out there, being a practicing homosexual on its face disqualifies you from the ministry. It is obvious that God does not call practicing homosexuals to the ministry. That is the Enemy seeking to do that, in direct violation of Scripture.

There shouldn't even have to be any discussion about it. Practicing homosexuals may call themselves ministers, but Scripture teaches they are false and we must not even eat with such people. (I Corinthians 5)

 

[RisingSpirit]

Practicing homosexuals may call themselves ministers, but Scripture teaches they are false and we must not even eat with such people. (I Corinthians 5)

I saw that. It's in plain view. Even though most don't agree with most new agers but sometimes they can make one think about what they said. I think it was from the book by Neal called "Conversations with God" It's like a script in a play but he writes down what God said and he responds. One caught my attention: Hitler went to Heaven. That made me mad and I was in rage for days and still are. But I read further on and it mentioned "group conciseness". Even though Hitler was evil, Germany and it's people as a large group played an important role in guiding the leader to do what he or she does. We, as a group play a role in causing others to do what they do.
If I accept that I might play a role very early on, I might be held responsible for leading another down or up a path.

Lets say the Scripture did say those things but we might ought to accept that all mankind don't want to follow it. So that means we're all guilty of sin. A small move can lead to a very big event that appears you have nothing to do with it.

Maybe God wants you to friend the Gay pastor and lead Him or her down or up a certain path. That one minute repentance from gays or any sinners might make a lifetime difference.

 

[RisingSpirit]

Practicing homosexuals may call themselves ministers, but Scripture teaches they are false and we must not even eat with such people. (I Corinthians 5)

I think if they call themselves Christians, we are not to eat with them. Does that apply to arminians or the followers of the P*pe? Way too many gray areas. I might want to apply that passage used during a time period and during a far different culture than ours. I'm agreeing more towards one poster, here, might be right when he said that many of the Scriptures could or more likely apply to those practicing in evil rituals that we don't perform in the 21st century. Man sleeping with man was common in ancient goddess rituals in those days. I don't see any goddess rituals today. They seem independent.

If one isn't absolutely sure of the interpretations, it might be better not to apply possible man-made laws to Christian lifestyles. It already seems to be getting us in trouble while it might be possible that it could be God's Will to call a homosexual to preach.

I still haven't gotten over how many children Moses killed. The last Mose's movie was a little turn off for me. I view it as a culture style at a different time period. It may not apply to those with private lifestyles, today. I view most Homosexuals as atheist but Christians seem to lump them all together as one single group.

What happen to perverted sex? No one are talking about them. They're too focused on gays. Perverted sex applies to a lot of non-gay folks.