PCUSA takes another step away from the Scriptures

[HereIStand]

I find this troubling because on this issue a plain language reading of Scripture will tell you that this is [bless and do not curse].

It can't be justified from what's clear in Scripture. So how is it justified at all? Some seem to attempt it by having a general principle of non-exclusion based on passages such Luke 14 (inviting the lame, blind, crippled, and poor to the banquet) or the Ethiopian eunuch's conversion in Acts. It's a dubious use of Scripture to be sure. That's sad because the PCUSA inherits such a strong heritage of rigorous study and defense of the faith from Scripture.

 

[Jim the Puritan]

Please pray for my wife and me as we look for a new Church home. We were attending one of the minority conservative PCUSA Churches, and now I don't know what we're gonna do. I knew it was going to be voted on and was waiting for a decision as to whether or not we would become members of the local PCUSA Church. I feel forced to leave, the decision really broke my heart, at the same time we have to take a stand. I feel it's only a matter of time now before even the conservative PCUSA Churches become liberal. One thing this has shown me is the importance of Church government and like it or not how legislation has real effects on real people.

Apologetic Warrior--

Your email is heartbreaking and your course of action is one that I think many Christians in PCUSA are wrestling with right now. I know I am personally wrestling with it as well as an elder in my conservative PCUSA church. As well as dreading having conversations with individual members and attenders that tell me they are going to leave.

However, can I ask this before you actually leave. You mentioned that you are in a conservative PCUSA church. Before you leave, please sit down with your pastor or one of the elders, express your concerns, and ask what the pastors and session may be doing to respond to the present situation. You may find that the same things are tearing at their hearts as well.

And you may find out that your pastors and session have indeed been wrestling with this situation for a while and have a plan of action. In my church, the pastors and session have seen this coming for a year and have been developing a plan of action. We had not brought it directly before the congregation until relatively recently, because we were prayerful up until a month or so ago that maybe 10-A would be defeated.

Ask your pastor / elders what their plans may be to deal with this. Your situation may be different depending on which presbytery your church is located in. If you are fortunate enough to be in a conservative church in a conservative presbytery, please be aware that many of those presbyteries have, or are in the process of, writing their own policies rejecting 10-A and stating that for that presbytery, obedience to Scripture, fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness will continue to be required. This is important because it is actually the presbyteries, not PCUSA, that determine the ordination standards for ministers within the presbytery. If you are in one of these presbyteries your church will be protected, at least for the near term until the homosexuals start to attack the individual presbyteries' autonomy, which will take some more machinations at General Assembly that may very well not get through.

If you are a conservative church in a liberal presbytery, things may be more serious. This is my church's situation. Seeing what is coming, we have already taken steps to withdraw from our presbytery and have requested transfer to a more conservative presbytery that has also passed a policy rejecting 10-A. We have had a session meeting that unanimously voted to begin the transfer, and this vote was ratified unanimously by the congregation this past Sunday.

The other possibilities that the pastors and elders may not have discussed with the congregation yet are (1) that the church will be beginning the process to leave PCUSA (the ability to do this varies from presbytery to presbytery, depending upon whether the presbytery has a gracious dismissal policy in place or is otherwise willing to let individual churches go); (2) there is a move right now to either form essentially a denomination within a denomination of those churches and presbyteries that reject PCUSA's position, or all those churches and presbyteries will simply announce to PCUSA they are leaving. The meeting will be held in August--it will be a question then whether it is determined that the faithful portion of PCUSA will just all leave the denomination, or whether a new denomination within a denomination will be formed that will not formally leave PCUSA, but will take the position that they reject PCUSA's position and will not go along with it. I don't think PCUSA yet realizes that they now have a part of the church that is now going to aggressively take on the non-Christians that have gained control of the denomination.

All of these may be possibilities you should look at before you actually make the decision to leave. In any event, please talk to your pastors and elders before actually leaving.

It's also possible your pastors will bring the issue up this Sunday or you will be getting a letter explaining what the church is planning to do in response. We got our letter from our pastor yesterday, informing the congregation of what we are going to do.

 

[Jim the Puritan]

Please pray for my wife and me as we look for a new Church home. We were attending one of the minority conservative PCUSA Churches, and now I don't know what we're gonna do. I knew it was going to be voted on and was waiting for a decision as to whether or not we would become members of the local PCUSA Church. I feel forced to leave, the decision really broke my heart, at the same time we have to take a stand. I feel it's only a matter of time now before even the conservative PCUSA Churches become liberal. One thing this has shown me is the importance of Church government and like it or not how legislation has real effects on real people.

One other suggestion. Our church is now going through a 24 hour prayer vigil to ask for God's mercy on PCUSA and our church. (Elders and many others also went through a pretty serious fast during Lent for the same reason.) Check with your pastors as to whether maybe your church can do the same. The only way this situation can begin to be addressed is through serious prayer and supplication to the Lord.

 

[HereIStand]

Please pray for my wife and me as we look for a new Church home. We were attending one of the minority conservative PCUSA Churches, and now I don't know what we're gonna do. I knew it was going to be voted on and was waiting for a decision as to whether or not we would become members of the local PCUSA Church. I feel forced to leave, the decision really broke my heart, at the same time we have to take a stand. I feel it's only a matter of time now before even the conservative PCUSA Churches become liberal. One thing this has shown me is the importance of Church government and like it or not how legislation has real effects on real people.

I would add to what Jim the Puritan has posted...

If you're able to establish that your pastor is opposed to the vote and you generally trust his leadership and doctrinal soundness otherwise, I would stay put for now. Especially if other church leaders and members are in agreement with the pastor on the vote.

My pastor opposed the vote, and I generally trust and like what I've heard from his sermons. He's at the evangelical end of PCUSA spectrum. I also feel like we're benefiting from the sermons and participation in other ministries.

In my family situation, attending a church with non-contemporary, liturgical style worship is important, and the PCUSA is one of the few nearby options. If we were to stop going to church where we are now, I'm afraid that we might not attend anywhere on a regular basis, which I don't is a good idea. If our pastor leaves, we may have to address going elsewhere depending on his replacement.

 

[hedrick]

There's another discussion in the Confessional / Presbyterian group. I'm not going to repeat what I've said there. Furthermore, the rules of CF wouldn't permit a defense of the PCUSA's position anyway. I would urge you to take that into account, and be careful making criticisms that can't be answered.

Let me simply observe that it's always hard when you've got a 50/50 split on an important issue. But the real decision was made around 1925, when the UPCUSA accepted (unofficially, but still for real) the Auburn Affirmation. At that point, the 5 "fundamentals" were made optional. This included inerrancy. Since then, the church has had a mixture of moderately conservative and moderately liberal. The numbers have changed slightly, but the basic approach has been pretty constant since 1925. Presumably anyone who couldn't in good conscience work with people who reject inerrancy has had plenty of time (85 years) to go somewhere else.

I don't want that to sound flippant. I'd like to see a reasonable range of views, and I certainly don't want to see conservatives leave. But it shouldn't be a shock to anyone that this change happened.

The standard that was just removed is actually an anomaly. In almost all areas of theology and practice, churches and presbyteries have a reasonable amount of leeway between moderate views on both sides of the spectrum. Inevitably this kind of compromise is more vexing to conservatives than liberals, since conservatives generally have more issues of conscience working with liberals than the reverse.But that is the nature of the PCUSA, and it's been that way for a long time.

This case was unusual, in that a slight conservative majority (56% of the presbyteries) wrote a mandatory standard into the constitution. No reasonable person could have expected that to last, and it didn't.

There's a lot of sympathy on both sides for people on the other side. Lots of our churches are mixed. Trying to separate the two views would require more than just moving churches between denominations. It would be very painful. Few people want it. Many of the most prominent people on both sides are going to try to make coexistence work. There's talk of non-geographical presbyteries or something like that. I hope we can come up with something that will work. I think having evangelicals in the denomination is good for all of us.

But I also understand that there are people who in good conscience can't work with gay pastors. So we'll see. Most people believe that there will be churches leave, but that it will be a fairly small percentage.

---------

A couple of details:

1) The change isn't as big as it sounds. The section removed wasn't the primary place where the qualifications for office are defined. That's the confessions and Scripture. They still say what they always said. Congregations and presbyteries that want to take a strict view on sexuality can still do so. The Constitution will support them. A number have indicated their intention to continue rejecting gay ordination. For the moment it doesn't appear that anyone will interfere, although it could get messy if a liberal congregation in a conservative presbytery wanted to call a gay pastor.

2) While this was an important symbolic change, the actual change happened in 2008. In that year, the General Assembly made an authoritative interpretation of the constitution saying that the provision in question was just like any other standard, i.e. that ordaining bodies had the responsibility to decide in any particular case how serious any given candidate's departure from the standard was. Hence ordaining bodies that didn't consider homosexuality a serious problem could ordain gay candidates since 2008. This position is the historical Presbyterian one, going back to 1729. Ordaining bodies have always had the responsibility to decide whether departures from the standards constitute a rejection of the essentials of the Reformed faith. The provision we just removed was an attempt to remove this one issue for that traditional discretion, but the General Assembly decided that the wording didn't actually do that. I agree. Of course historically larger bodies have also had the responsibility to review actions of smaller ones, so an individual church can't go off on their own. But the highest level body hasn't considered homosexuality to be absolutely disqualifying since shortly after the amendment was originally added.

 

[HereIStand]

It's true that the PCUSA as a whole is not evangelical and that's not a recent change. Arguably though, changes in secular society's attitude on homosexuality and abortion that have been mirrored in some segments of the PCUSA are fairly recent. And only began to be evident beginning in the 1960s. What's difficult to accept now is the sense that the PCUSA has done nothing to resist these changes and has in fact now adopted positions that place the denomination to the left of even where some non-Christians are on these issues.

 

[Jim the Puritan]

The problem is that the new change is being read to allow unrepentant sinners to be ordained (in this case, sexual sin). That has never before been permitted, whether there was express language or not.

 

[yourstrulyjulie]

and this is part of why I converted to Catholicism.

 

[hedrick]

It's true that the PCUSA as a whole is not evangelical and that's not a recent change. Arguably though, changes in secular society's attitude on homosexuality and abortion that have been mirrored in some segments of the PCUSA are fairly recent. And only began to be evident beginning in the 1960s. What's difficult to accept now is the sense that the PCUSA has done nothing to resist these changes and has in fact now adopted positions that place the denomination to the left of even where some non-Christians are on these issues.

One thing we're hearing a lot of, and I think it's in the posting, is "you're giving in to the culture." Let's look at that.

Our culture is, in part, formed by Christianity. There are things about it that are unChristian, and there are Christian virtues that when removed from their source become unbalanced. But still, the mere fact that something is a movement independent of the churches need not mean that it is wrong.

Example: the civil rights movement. While many of its leaders came from the churches, there was also a lot of opposition from Christians, and much of the movement was secular. The theology behind it was settled 2000 years ago (actually, earlier). Yet for many Christians it took a cultural change before they were ready to listen.

Acceptance of gays by the PCUSA has some similarities. The theology was settled for us in 1925. (We can argue about what Calvin would have thought about inerrancy, but at least the modern form of the question was decided for the PCUSA in the early 20th Cent.) Some of the push comes from Christians. Much does not. Yet the overall desire for justice, whether it's within the Church or not, is surely Christian. (This doesn't mean it's automatically right. There can be ill-conceived justice.) Although the theology behind it is old, many Christians were not willing to consider it until their culture started pushing. This absolutely does not mean that it's wrong, or that it's just something our culture has done irrationally. Perhaps non-Christians learned the desire for justice from us and in some cases saw places it should be applied that we did not.

You simply can't use the origin of a thing to judge whether it's right or wrong. Unfortunately people are imperfect. There are things that their theology teaches that aren't real to them until people around them start affirming it.

The PCUSA did not and does not accept the whole 1960's free love thing. This is more a continuation of the civil rights movement than the sexual revolution. Maybe an ill-conceived continuation, but the motivation is justice, not a desire to remove all restraints. The people I've talked to who accept gays still believe that fidelity and chastity are important. It's no longer present in G-6.0106b, but it is certainly present in both Scripture and the confessions, and those remain our primary standards.

The desire for fidelity is one reason that I think gay marriage is going to have to follow this quickly. If we're going to accept sexually active gays, we (and they) are going to want them to be accountable for their use of sex. I know many people think that gay marriage is a further departure from the tradition, but it is not. It is the most conservative approach to allowing gay sex. If we're going to allow it, we want it to be accountable in the same way as heterosexual sex.

 

[Jim the Puritan]

One thing we're hearing a lot of, and I think it's in the posting, is "you're giving in to the culture." Let's look at that.

Our culture is, in part, formed by Christianity. There are things about it that are unChristian, and there are Christian virtues that when removed from their source become unbalanced. But still, the mere fact that something is a movement independent of the churches need not mean that it is wrong.

Example: the civil rights movement. While many of its leaders came from the churches, there was also a lot of opposition from Christians, and much of the movement was secular. The theology behind it was settled 2000 years ago (actually, earlier). Yet for many Christians it took a cultural change before they were ready to listen.

Acceptance of gays by the PCUSA has some similarities. The theology was settled for us in 1925. (We can argue about what Calvin would have thought about inerrancy, but at least the modern form of the question was decided for the PCUSA in the early 20th Cent.) Some of the push comes from Christians. Much does not. Yet the overall desire for justice, whether it's within the Church or not, is surely Christian. (This doesn't mean it's automatically right. There can be ill-conceived justice.) Although the theology behind it is old, many Christians were not willing to consider it until their culture started pushing. This absolutely does not mean that it's wrong, or that it's just something our culture has done irrationally. Perhaps non-Christians learned the desire for justice from us and in some cases saw places it should be applied that we did not.

You simply can't use the origin of a thing to judge whether it's right or wrong. Unfortunately people are imperfect. There are things that their theology teaches that aren't real to them until people around them start affirming it.

The PCUSA did not and does not accept the whole 1960's free love thing. This is more a continuation of the civil rights movement than the sexual revolution. Maybe an ill-conceived continuation, but the motivation is justice, not a desire to remove all restraints. The people I've talked to who accept gays still believe that fidelity and chastity are important. It's no longer present in G-6.0106b, but it is certainly present in both Scripture and the confessions, and those remain our primary standards.

The desire for fidelity is one reason that I think gay marriage is going to have to follow this quickly. If we're going to accept sexually active gays, we (and they) are going to want them to be accountable for their use of sex. I know many people think that gay marriage is a further departure from the tradition, but it is not. It is the most conservative approach to allowing gay sex. If we're going to allow it, we want it to be accountable in the same way as heterosexual sex.

Hedrick, it seems from what I can tell about you that you are relatively high up in seniority or experience in PCUSA, but what you write totally terrifies me with how false it is.

Christianity has NEVER endorsed sexually immoral practices such as homosexuality. Your posts conflate "inerrancy" with accepting sexual immorality, and "justice" with accepting sexual immorality. And now you bootstrap "accepting sexually active gays," which in itself is completely abhorrent to Christians, with saying that this leads to that they must also get gay "marriage," another concept that is a non-compute for Christians, because marriage is reserved by God to a man and a woman.

To take your analogy one step further, if you are as involved as the church as you appear to be, you no doubt see the polyamorists starting to make a similar play about needing to be accorded justice. And in the new variant of the "shellfish" arguments, arguing that there is nothing expressly in the Bible against multiple sexual relationships, that Jesus never said anything about it, etc.

Doesn't that frighten you? It is not going at all in the direction you claim. The church is being completely consumed by sexual hedonism, all of the things Paul warned the Corinthians about.

And the biggest problem is this. The New Testament is clear that people living impure sexual lives is incompatible with the presence of the Holy Spirit. A church that embraces sexual immorality, which PCUSA has now done completely by affirming adultery and fornication (lack of fidelity and lack of chastity), has basically given the Holy Spirit the boot out of the church. God will not be present in a church that endorses sexual immorality. It is as simple as that, and the primary reason why many of us still in PCUSA (at least for the moment) have to figure out some way to wall off the immorality from also infecting and killing our churches spiritually.

I've only been a Presbyterian for about 12 years. But I was born and raised an Episcopalian and thus lived through all the spiritual destruction that that church has gone through, from embracing myriad forms of sexual immorality and non-Christian practices. My parish once had several thousand members when I was a child. Today it is an empty Gothic church with perhaps 100 worshipers on a Sunday, no longer able to afford a rector, and basically looking at shutting down within the next 5 years. All because their people in the late 1990s foolishly accepted the false promise that calling evil good (affirming homosexual sex) was going to reinvigorate the church. Instead it killed it. It has lost over 60% of its members just after 2002, and only a small percentage of those left on the rolls are actually attenders. The Christians all left, and the gays had no interest in the church once they had controlled it because they don't care about the Gospel, they care only about advancing acceptance of their sexual behavior. Similarly, the Episcopal Church in general here is on life support. Just in the urban areas of my city, there are six parishes that cannot even fund a rector any longer.

Don't you see the Enemy has the same agenda in mind for PCUSA? Please open your eyes to this evil before it is too late.

 

[hedrick]

You're using a definition of hedonism that doesn't match anything I recognize. The gay Christians that I know, and that our church would be interested in as officers, are remarkably like heterosexuals in how they live. What I see when talking with conservatives is masses of rhetoric that I don't think match reality.

I readily agree that mainline Christianity has lost its popularity. There are many reasons for this, some good and some bad. But Christians have never confused truth with popularity, except maybe briefly when their group is popular. I can pretty much guarantee you that we will lose at most one member over this, and he probably would go in any case. We might gain one or two, although I doubt that as well. We'll probably have a gay elder or deacon at some point. If we do, they'll be just as active as anyone else. Our members care about it more because of concern for their homosexual family members, to show support for them. It's really important to some of our folks for that reason. (Yes, I know the right way to support them to tell them they have to change. Sorry, I'm not arguing with you but telling you likely effects on our congregation. I can guarantee that that's not going to happen. I got in enough trouble just for trying to make sure my 7th and 8th graders know what the Biblical arguments against it are, and the person I got in trouble with is a young-earth creationist!)

No, I'm not hearing anything about polyamory, except in one special context I'm about to mention. There is, of course, some Biblical support for it, but I think the common wisdom is that it's generally a bad idea. 1 Tim, of course, rules it out for deacons and elders, although it's obvious that that isn't necessarily the final answer for us. Still, it's something that has been tried, and Jewish and Christian experience said it was a bad idea. I'd be wiling to listen to arguments, but I'm not hearing any. I'm also not hearing any proposals for sex with animals, sex with children, or anything else that people claim will obviously come next. Indeed if anything we're tightening up enforcement on sex with children.

The one other area where we're more lax than conservatives would like is standards for young adults. I'm pretty sure our young adults aren't much different in their actual practice from Southern Baptists, but we're a bit more likely to take a mild (although disapproving) view of sexual experimentation and moderate use of soft porn. We'd probably get more aggressive about it if there were good reason to think that getting aggressive would be useful. But there isn't. This isn't something you'll hear about officially. Nobody is going to say the premarital intercourse is a good thing. But our culture isn't quite as focused on preventing it as some evangelicals are. I have no idea whether this is recent or not. When I was a kid in the 60s (United Methodist Church, but I think standards were and are similar) I don't recall any more emphasis on sexual purity than there is now. Sex among our older teens is unusual, but not unheard of (assuming what I hear from my younger friends is accurate, which it probably is). As far as I know of, our teen church officers aren't involved, and one of my young friends would object to nominations if they were.

A working group did an interesting analysis of sexual morality in 1991. They made some suggestions that I don't think will fly. Many people will be outraged. But the one thing it wasn't is hedonistic. In general I think they were just as careful about sex as in traditional standards, even if they didn't always agree. One of the things that no one seems to have mentioned since was their idea that people who for various reasons found it difficult to find mates might be second husbands or wives. It's an interesting suggestion, which I don't actually think is impossible from a Biblical point of view. But it went "thud" in the PCUSA, and I believe is unlikely to be renewed. Despite what you're hearing based on the gay issue, we're a pretty conservative bunch in terms of sexuality.

 

[Jim the Puritan]

There is no such thing as a "gay Christian," if you are referring to people who are unrepentantly engaging in homosexual sex, which is directly against God's commands.

If they are chaste, that is a different matter. My church presently has a serving deacon who might be considered "gay," but he has repented of his sin since he became a Christian (he became a Christian after he discovered he had AIDS and started to come to our church where we welcomed him), and is chaste. I have no problem with such persons serving as officers and I consider him my brother, but I don't think that is what you are referring to.

We haven't even begun to discuss how PCUSA physically and spiritually hurts those trapped in the gay lifestyle who now can say that PCUSA validates their immorality. We need to be rescuing people from their sins, not telling them their sins are ok.

 

[HereIStand]

I agree with Jim_the_Puritan in that a gay Christian is a contradiction in terms, if it means that a person is going act on his homosexual desire and see nothing wrong with it from a Christian standpoint.

The more I think about though, baring a miracle turnaround to orthodoxy, I can see the PCUSA becoming essentially Unitarian in a generation. In a sense, some within the PCUSA may already be there. If one is willing to treat any fundamental Christian belief as optional, treat universalism as a valid Christian belief, and see no incompatibility between Christianity and homosexual practice, then that seems more or less compatible with Unitarianism.

 

[hedrick]

I agree with Jim_the_Puritan in that a gay Christian is a contradiction in terms, if it means that a person is going act on his homosexual desire and see nothing wrong with it from a Christian standpoint.

The more I think about though, baring a miracle turnaround to orthodoxy, I can see the PCUSA becoming essentially Unitarian in a generation. In a sense, some within the PCUSA may already be there. If one is willing to treat any fundamental Christian belief as optional, treat universalism as a valid Christian belief, and see no incompatibility between Christianity and homosexual practice, then that's seems more or less compatible with Unitarianism.

How about a divorced Christian? That's a more consistent NT teaching. Do you really claim that no Christian can have a sin that they're denying? I wish. Even our conservatives accept that members can be homosexual. I assume none of our conservative leaders would want to allow non-Christian members. We've got enough difficulties working together as is, without this kind of thing.

Our theology has been pretty stable since 1925. Certainly the books I have from the 1950's still represent the theology I hear now. And the committee that was asked to study homosexuality for the 1978 AI recommended the action we just took, with an analysis that is pretty much what we'd use now. That's 30 years ago.

There's a lot of hysteria going around now about the PCUSA. Let's check in again in 20 years, if I'm still around. I don't think you'll find us unitarian.

I don't hear much universalism. The inclusive position is fairly common. But that was dealt with in the Auburn Affirmation in 1925.

Please let's back off the rhetoric.

 

[HereIStand]

How about a divorced Christian? That's a more consistent NT teaching. Do you really claim that no Christian can have a sin that they're denying? I wish. Even our conservatives accept that members can be homosexual. I assume none of our conservative leaders would want to allow non-Christian members. We've got enough difficulties working together as is, without this kind of thing.

Our theology has been pretty stable since 1925. Certainly the books I have from the 1950's still represent the theology I hear now. And the committee that was asked to study homosexuality for the 1978 AI recommended the action we just took, with an analysis that is pretty much what we'd use now. That's 30 years ago.

There's a lot of hysteria going around now about the PCUSA. Let's check in again in 20 years, if I'm still around. I don't think you'll find us unitarian.

I don't hear much universalism. The inclusive position is fairly common. But that was dealt with in the Auburn Affirmation in 1925.

Please let's back off the rhetoric.

Contrary to how homosexual practice is being treated in the PCUSA, no one sees divorce as anything to be welcomed and celebrated within the life of a Christian.

Not trying to sound alarmist. But if most any belief or practice becomes optional, not much is left to build a foundation on for the future.

 

[Jim the Puritan]

How about a divorced Christian? That's a more consistent NT teaching. Do you really claim that no Christian can have a sin that they're denying? I wish. Even our conservatives accept that members can be homosexual. I assume none of our conservative leaders would want to allow non-Christian members. We've got enough difficulties working together as is, without this kind of thing.

Our theology has been pretty stable since 1925. Certainly the books I have from the 1950's still represent the theology I hear now. And the committee that was asked to study homosexuality for the 1978 AI recommended the action we just took, with an analysis that is pretty much what we'd use now. That's 30 years ago.

There's a lot of hysteria going around now about the PCUSA. Let's check in again in 20 years, if I'm still around. I don't think you'll find us unitarian.

I don't hear much universalism. The inclusive position is fairly common. But that was dealt with in the Auburn Affirmation in 1925.

Please let's back off the rhetoric.

???

Persons engaging in sexual sin who don't repent and stop the behavior cannot become church members, or if it is discovered after they become members, are subject to discipline.

My church does not hunt out people who are sinning in this area. I think we realize that a lot of sexual sin is an addiction like substance or alcohol abuse which it is difficult to fight. We would rather stand by the person if they are willing to work to try to abandon sexual sin, including homosexual activity.

But the church has disciplined members who refused to stop engaging in adultery, for example.

That's why it's a total non sequitur for PCUSA to say that such people are now qualified to serve as ministers, elders or deacons. The liberal portion of PCUSA cannot change the requirements of Scripture.

As has already been stated in the statement issued by a number of Presbyterian groups which have already rejected the erroneous present policy interpretation that the change in standards allows ordained officers to engage in sexual sin:

Some interpretations given to the substitute language assume that the change opens the way for the ordination of persons living in relationships -- including homosexual relationships -- outside the bonds of marriage between a man and a woman.

The vote, however, does not change the will of God expressed in Scripture. As Presbyterians, we proclaim our ultimate allegiance is to Jesus Christ, as he is revealed in Scripture, and our intent is to be obedient to him. We recognize that we are accountable to the Lord of the Church for our behavior, including our sexual behavior, and that the Church is responsible for including this truth in its proclamation.

We declare that individually and corporately, we Presbyterians are called to a life of fidelity to God, in accordance with his will revealed in the Word of God (e.g. Gen. 2:24; Exod. 20:14; Jude 3-8; Heb. 13:4; Rom. 1:26-27; Rom.13:12-14; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; 1 Cor. 6 18-20; 1 Cor. 5:1-13; Eph 5:1-10; Matt. 15:17-20; and others); and that, as officers of the church, we "accept the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be, by the Holy Spirit, the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ..."; (Directory for Worship, W-4.4003b)

We further declare that we Presbyterians who are officers of the church, have voluntarily promised to "receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions of our church as authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do...", (Directory for Worship, W-4.4003c) and that the confessions call us to lives of sexual holiness; (4.087; 4.108-4.1099.47; 7.247-7.249

We further declare that we Presbyterians are called to repentance from every form of idolatry and from every other sin that seeks to rule us individually or corporately, including sexual sin and the temptation to accept sexual sin as permissible behavior;

We further declare that we Presbyterians are called to hold each other accountable to the standards, the teaching, the grace and truth, of the Scriptures and the Confessions, even when the councils of the church err.

We choose to obey God, as revealed in Jesus Christ through Scripture.

As grateful recipients of Christ's mercy, we choose to proclaim the Gospel to those in error on this matter, even in our own denomination, and to seek their repentance and restoration to life in our Lord Jesus Christ.

As Presbyterians committed to following Christ, we call the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to repent of this recent action that conforms to the desires of the flesh rather than yielding to and upholding the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, by which she is conformed to Christ.

 

[hedrick]

Just to be clear: I was not objecting to the use of church discipline with gays, or not ordaining them. I disagree with the judgment, but it's a perfectly reasonable thing for conservatives to do. I was disagreeing with the statement that there's no such thing as a gay Christian. For better or worse Christians have blind spots on all kinds of sins.

I'm also objecting to the "sky is falling" kind of things. This does not represent a significant underlying theological change. We are not about to become unitarians.

 

[supersoldier71]

Brother,

So the PCUSA has determined that by their interpretation of Scripture, homosexual activities are not sinful in and of themselves, but only when practiced outside of a "marriage"?

 

[hedrick]

Brother,

So the PCUSA has determined that by their interpretation of Scripture, homosexual activities are not sinful in and of themselves, but only when practiced outside of a "marriage"?

The PCUSA currently defines a marriage as between a man and a woman, so this is not possible. My own personal view is that since we now have members who engage in gay sex, and we soon will have officers who do, I believe most people will probably want that to be within marriage or its equivalent. However I want people to be clear on the difference between PCUSA policy and my personal opinion on where it is likely to go.

You should not take support for gay marriage as necessarily meaning that people think gay sex is OK. In a white paper on sexuality done in 1991, the minority report (which considered homosexuality wrong) still believed that it would be best to provide something like marriage for those people who were going to engage in homosexuality. You can make an analogy between this and the many parents who believe their kids should not engage on premarital intercourse, but if they do that they should take as many precautions as possible.

It is of course possible that we will choose not to modify the definition, in which case I would think most people would prefer a union that is morally equivalent to marriage. Current rules do permit pastors to bless unions between homosexuals, just not to call them marriages or to use the same liturgy as a marriage.

There is currently no official statement denying that homosexual relations are sin. The only official statements on the topic are the confessions and Scripture, both of which say what you know they say. There has been no statement from the PCUSA saying that homosexuality is OK, although there any many members and officers who believe that this is true. I know of no plans to make such a such a statement. Many people are acting as if we had said this, but we have not. I realize some of my comments may have inadvertently given this impression. I apologize.

The change permits ordaining bodies to make the own evaluation of the candidates without any specific actions being regarded as automatic disqualifications. Now this change probably wouldn't have happened unless many of our members considered gay sex to be OK. But not everyone who supported the change thinks this. It is perfectly possible that a body could regard homosexual relations to be sin, but still consider that on balance the candidate is acceptable. From my discussions with them, I believe there are elders within my congregation that feel this way. I.e. they accept that the Bible says that homosexual sex is wrong, but would still be willing to consider some gay candidates. There are also elders in the denomination, and in our congregation, who believe that it is not sinful. The current change is obviously helpful for them, but you should not assume that everyone who voted for it believes that gay sex is OK, or that the PCUSA has said so that it is.

 

[kenrapoza]

Hedrick - what is the PC(USA)'s position on heterosexual sex outside of marriage? You've said that the standards are Scripture and the confessions, which haven't changed, but I'm wondering if the church has an official view of what the scriptural/confessional position is. Or is it likely to vary from congregation to congregation and presbytery to presbytery?