PCUSA Amendment 14-F

[BryanW92]

What does today's news about the PCUSA (Amendment 14-F) mean in practicality for the denomination?

 

[hedrick]

What does today's news about the PCUSA (Amendment 14-F) mean in practicality for the denomination?

In theory, not much. The last GA already allowed gay marriage in States where it is legal. The only difference is that it eliminates the possibility that their interpretation could be overturned by the PJC, so it saves us a few years of appeals. (Or even flip-flopping rulings. The GA and the PJC have equal authority in authoritative interpretations. The latest ruling controls. So the PJC could overrule the GA's interpretation, and the next GA could restore it.) In both the GA's interpretation and the new text, it's up to the local church and pastor, and only people allowed by the State can be married.

There's less potential for interfering in conservative churches than there was in the earlier change involving ordination. We could always see a replay of the Kenyon ruling on ordination. That is, someone could ask a candidate for ordination whether they would ordain a gay elder should their Church elect one. A Presbytery might say that a "no" answer indicates a failure to carry out their office. So far that hasn't happened, and I'm pretty sure no one wants to see it happen, but the analogous situation did occur with ordination of women (the Kenyon case).

However I don't see any way that could be done with marriage. It is very clear that a pastor does not have the obligation to marry someone, and that he is entirely within his rights to refuse to do so for any reason.

In terms of political impact, I'm not sure. Does this add additional problems to the initial permission of gay ordination? It's certainly caused more rhetoric. But as far as I can see everyone that is upset by gay marriage was already upset, so I'm not sure that this decision actually has much impact.

 

[BryanW92]

Thanks for the info. I was wondering because my friends know that I'm Presbyterian (and all Presbyterians look alike to them), so they're going to ask me about this once the news goes mainstream.

 

[AMR]

Thanks for the info. I was wondering because my friends know that I'm Presbyterian (and all Presbyterians look alike to them), so they're going to ask me about this once the news goes mainstream.

Point questioners here:

https://biblebased.wordpress.com/2013/04/16/13-differences-between-the-pca-and-the-pcusa/

PCA Affirms Biblical Marriage | byFaith

A Summary of PCA Statements on Homosexuality

 

[hedrick]

A couple of points for people not knowledgable in the Presbyterian Church:

* The PCUSA is fairly diverse. While many conservatives have moved to other denominations in the last few years, we still have plenty of people who consider gay sex to be contrary to Scripture. There are churches and entire presbyteries who maintain traditional views on this. So people shouldn't assume that any given PCUSA church accepts gay sex.

* The real issue in this decision wasn't whether gay people could have committed relationships. Pretty clearly any church that accepts gay sex would want that. Presbyterian pastors were always permitted (even when we didn't ordain gay officers) to hold a service blessing such a commitment. The decision was to allow that commitment to be called a marriage in States where legally it can be a marriage. As States allowed gay marriage, technically couples had to be married by a justice of the peace, and then have a church service blessing their union as a non-marriage.

* Some of the press coverage implied that there's a difference between the PCUSA and ELCA positions. One said that this policy applies to the church as a whole while the ELCA has local option. I don't believe that distinction makes sense. It's true that the decision applies to the Church as a whole, but the decision only gives permission. It very clearly permits pastors and churches to decide who they will marry. So I don't think there's any difference.

* A number of people have noted that the vote on this issue is very different from the vote on the question of ordination. The ordination vote was fairly close. This is not. If you look at the numbers of votes cast, it appears that much of the change is due to the departure of conservative congregations. While there are still substantial numbers of conservative congregations and presbyteries, the balance has clearly shifted.

 

[striger]

Im afraid to ask my pastor if she plan on marrying gays. So controversial. Don't want them to think I might have thoughts on that subject. Sort of like not my business

 

[AMR]

Im afraid to ask my pastor if she plan on marrying gays. So controversial. Don't want them to think I might have thoughts on that subject. Sort of like not my business

Actually, topics such as this is every member's business of the local church. Why would a member be willing to unknowingly participate in any sort of error practiced by the church? I would hope your Pastor would be willing to give an answer to any and all matters related to a church member's conscience. If you disagree with the answer you have but two choices--disagree but commit to keeping the peace per your membership vow, or withdraw and find another local visible vestige of His bride our Lord died for that more closely meets your views.

 

[hedrick]

Actually, topics such as this is every member's business of the local church. Why would a member be willing to unknowingly participate in any sort of error practiced by the church? I would hope your Pastor would be willing to give an answer to any and all matters related to a church member's conscience. If you disagree with the answer you have but two choices--disagree but commit to keeping the peace per your membership vow, or withdraw and find another local visible vestige of His bride our Lord died for that more closely meets your views.

I agree, at least in principle. While a pastor has the right not to marry a person where he thinks it isn't pastorally sound, the primary decision for a significant policy like this lies with the Session. They are making decisions for the congregation as a whole. So individual members have every right to know what's going on.

However you may find that your congregation hasn't made a decision. Some have had a clear position for years. Ours certainly has. But many others have respected members and leaders with both views, and may not want to take a position. They may well not make a decision until an actual situation comes up, and may even punt and let the pastor decide. While that's not our approach, I have sympathy with it.

 

[BryanW92]

Actually, topics such as this is every member's business of the local church. Why would a member be willing to unknowingly participate in any sort of error practiced by the church?

I agree. Church is much more than a place to watch the Sunday Sound and Sermon Show.

 

[striger]

Actually, topics such as this is every member's business of the local church. Why would a member be willing to unknowingly participate in any sort of error practiced by the church? I would hope your Pastor would be willing to give an answer to any and all matters related to a church member's conscience. If you disagree with the answer you have but two choices--disagree but commit to keeping the peace per your membership vow, or withdraw and find another local visible vestige of His bride our Lord died for that more closely meets your views.

I think sex envolves sperm and egg. Outside that isn't sex. Is kiss a sex? Pretend to be may be a problem but everyone pretends at times. I thought the bible say its better not to marry sometimes. I'm not sure if we should force man and woman to marry. I think a woman has a right not to have a man.

 

[hedrick]

I think sex envolves sperm and egg. Outside that isn't sex. Is kiss a sex? Pretend to be may be a problem but everyone pretends at times. I thought the bible say its better not to marry sometimes. I'm not sure if we should force man and woman to marry. I think a woman has a right not to have a man.

I think this is too narrow a definition of sex. There's also a spectrum. Kissing isn't sex, but it's sexual, an expression of sexual attraction and relationship.

This is a difficult topic to deal with, because CF rules don't permit a discussion of whether gay sex is permissible Biblically. But if you're implying that it isn't sex, I don't think most scholars would agree with you, whether they're liberal or conservative on this issue. If you're looking at what Paul has to say, presumably he used definitions from 1st Cent Judaism. There's been a good deal of work done on that. 1st Cent Jews do seem to have seen some acts not involving sperm and egg as sex. Often deviant sex.

That's about as far as I feel free to go.

I do agree that Scripture, and early Christian practice, say that marriage is not mandatory, and establish celibacy as an honorable calling.

 

[striger]

I think this is too narrow a definition of sex. There's also a spectrum. Kissing isn't sex, but it's sexual, an expression of sexual attraction and relationship.

This is a difficult topic to deal with, because CF rules don't permit a discussion of whether gay sex is permissible Biblically. But if you're implying that it isn't sex, I don't think most scholars would agree with you, whether they're liberal or conservative on this issue. If you're looking at what Paul has to say, presumably he used definitions from 1st Cent Judaism. There's been a good deal of work done on that. 1st Cent Jews do seem to have seen some acts not involving sperm and egg as sex. Often deviant sex.

That's about as far as I feel free to go.

I do agree that Scripture, and early Christian practice, say that marriage is not mandatory, and establish celibacy as an honorable calling.

Tell me more about, "early Christian practice, say that marriage is not mandatory"

 

[hedrick]

Tell me more about, "early Christian practice, say that marriage is not mandatory"

Lifelong virginity was considered a virtue by many Christians. I'm not an expert on that, but it's a pretty well-known part of the Catholic tradition.

Here's a review from women's point of view: http://www.haverford.edu/relg/faculty/amcguire/relg221b/castelli.pdf

 

[quigonj]

What does it mean?

It means that a denomination that was already fracturing will likely break apart. Three churches in my presbytery already said goodbye over this.

The language in 14F is particularly troubling. (source)

It says "If they meet the requirements of the civil jurisdiction in which they intend to marry, a couple may request that a service of Christian marriage be conducted by a teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), who is authorized, though not required, to act as an agent of the civil jurisdiction in recording the marriage contract."

In other words, anything a judge creates, polygamy or whatever, is no longer a discussion. The PCUSA is subordinate to the state in any atrocity it creates. And there is precedent within PCUSA to make this language mandatory, and we can only expect it will be in a few years.

As a conservative Christian, I believe the Lord said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I'm not up for shaming anyone. But unless I am missing scripture, the Lord didn't then help Mary Magdalene create a support group for her sin and march her up to the rabbis to make them participate in her rebellion against the Almighty. What did He tell her? "Go and sin no more."

What is happening should be fought, because we who know the Law are supposed to live in the Law that strengthens us. There are plenty of forms of "love" that are not seen as proper in His eyes. People can do as they wish, but neither me nor my church should have to sanction it or celebrate that which we know to be wrong.

 

[hedrick]

The language in 14F is particularly troubling. (source)

It says "If they meet the requirements of the civil jurisdiction in which they intend to marry, a couple may request that a service of Christian marriage be conducted by a teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), who is authorized, though not required, to act as an agent of the civil jurisdiction in recording the marriage contract."

In other words, anything a judge creates, polygamy or whatever, is no longer a discussion. The PCUSA is subordinate to the state in any atrocity it creates. And there is precedent within PCUSA to make this language mandatory, and we can only expect it will be in a few years.

Marriage services result in marriages under State law. Otherwise you'd need a separate marriage before a Justice of the Peace. Thus the minister is acting as an agent of the State.

The language also make it clear that we only marry people who are qualified under State law. Examples would be age limits, requirements for blood tests, limits on near relatives, etc. In this case it would also limit gay marriage to States where it is legal.

Similar language was present in the old policy,

 

[quigonj]

That's not what my pastor said at Session. (I am an elder.) This language, mirroring us to the state, that's new. The language will open up churches to being sued by a very vindictive group if we decide against gay marriage in our sanctuaries.

First they came for the bakers for speaking the truth, then they will come for us. Separation was to keep the state out of the church, we just threw open the doors for them.

The simpler solution will be to follow those other three churches who decided the same thing to ECO and watch PCUSA face the consequences. I had no say in those three leaving, but I support them.

 

[BryanW92]

Since Friday, I've been approached by three friends who are PCUSA and all have asked, "Sooooo, tell me what the PCA is all about."

 

[hedrick]

That's not what my pastor said at Session. (I am an elder.) This language, mirroring us to the state, that's new. The language will open up churches to being sued by a very vindictive group if we decide against gay marriage in our sanctuaries.

First they came for the bakers for speaking the truth, then they will come for us. Separation was to keep the state out of the church, we just threw open the doors for them.

The simpler solution will be to follow those other three churches who decided the same thing to ECO and watch PCUSA face the consequences. I had no say in those three leaving, but I support them.

Here's the old text:

"Marriage is a gift God has given to all humankind for the well-being of the entire human family. Marriage is a civil contract between a woman and a man. For Christians marriage is a covenant through which a man and a woman are called to live out together before God their lives of discipleship. In a service of Christian marriage a lifelong commitment is made by a woman and a man to each other, publicly witnessed and acknowledged by the community of faith.

"a. In preparation for the marriage service, the teaching elder† shall provide for a discussion with the man and the woman concerning
...
"(2) the legal requirements of the state"

Note the same two elements: it is a civil contract, which means that the pastor is acting as an agent of the State. And the couple must meet the requirements of the State.

As long as the pastor files the paperwork with the State, there's no way to avoid having him acting as an agent of the State. The alternative would be to conduct a purely civil marriage and have the Church bless it.

The new language protects the pastor's right to decide. In addition to carrying over the old language saying that a pastor may refuse to marry someone if he thinks the marriage is unwise, the following has been added:

"Nothing herein shall compel a teaching elder to perform nor compel a session to authorize the use of church property for a marriage service that the teaching elder or the session believes is contra- ry to the teaching elder’s or the session’s discernment of the Holy Spirit and their understanding of the Word of God."

I believe the new language is actually intended to tone down the connection with the State. The old language defined marriage as a civil contract, with an extra meaning for Christians. The new language separates the Christian and civil definitions, with the Christian one coming first, and says that the pastor has the *option* of acting as an agent of the State in recording the marriage contract. The old language didn't specify that as an option. In the process of making it optional they had to refer to the minster's role as an agent of the State. In the old wording it was taken for granted in defining it as a civil contract.

I know you don't approve of this decision, but please don't let your hostility lead you to accepting unfair statements about the change.

I'm hoping that States won't require churches to perform gay marriages. But if they do, the old wording is no safer than the new, and actually has fewer protections.

 

[quigonj]

Before I continue, hedrick, please let me say I have read you on other pages here, and you have my respect. We are brothers in Christ, even though we disagree. I am happy to have found these forums, as I have looked many times for such a place and not found it.

Now, back to the subject. I'm in California, so we will probably see such language sooner rather than later. The "hostility" you speak of is because, in my experience, the left works very hard to make their views compulsory, and I see this coming.

Our previous language was clear about one man and one woman, (Marriage is a civil contract between a woman and a man. For Christians marriage is a covenant through which a man and a woman are called to live out together before God their lives of discipleship.) The new language chucks everything in the first paragraph out the window, and like how we are now required to pay for same gender relationships though pensions and benefits, this is the slippery slope.

It may sound like a one-issue thing, but the desire to no longer be with PCUSA is not just based on the one decision. PCUSA pays ministers who are openly atheist. A couple of GAs back, it was suggested we no longer call ourselves "Christians" because Christian offends people. PCUSA supports abortion for most part, despite that thing, maybe it was a suggestion, that Thou Shalt Not Kill. The GA does not fully support Israel. There are tons of reasons that churches across the country are leaving. It was their flight over gay ministry that allowed this decision to happen, because other conservative churches have seen the writing on the wall. The painful part is, our presbytery voted as we did on the matter, and we are fond of it. But we have to decide if we are to be rebellious to the Lord and follow the world, or follow our conscience.

 

[hedrick]

It may sound like a one-issue thing, but the desire to no longer be with PCUSA is not just based on the one decision. PCUSA pays ministers who are openly atheist. A couple of GAs back, it was suggested we no longer call ourselves "Christians" because Christian offends people.

There is a lunatic fringe in the PCUSA. I have some experience not only with individual congregations but Presbytery in two liberal presbyteries in the Northeast. I haven't run into these clergy. But I do know that they exist. For some reason GA meetings seem to attract the fringe.

The PCUSA has disciplinary policies, including procedures for heresy. They were used regularly during the conflict on homosexuality. To my knowledge they haven't been used to deal with atheism. I'm surprised. I take a fairly broad view of the Reformed tradition. But I think atheism is well outside of it.

I'm not aware of any effort to stop using the term Christian.