PCUSA takes another step away from the Scriptures

[needinganame]

It'll be soon my family leaves our pc-usa church. In my firm opposition to 10a I have since learned other things very disheartening. Such as funding abortions through the board of pensions, support of the palestinians in the Israeli conflict.

The ratification is not just about the ordination of LGBT folks into leadership, but also about the fidelity of marriage and a life lived according to scripture by those whom are to be ordained beit pastor, elder or deacon. Read the amendment here
oga.pcusa.org/ga219/pdf/ordstandards_final_FAQ.pdf
you need to cut and paste because my membership of this community is too new. but look at what WAS and now what is written into the constitution

Rambling is useless so I'll finish. I am very upset by the issue.

 

[heymikey80]

http://oga.pcusa.org/ga219/pdf/ordstandards_final_FAQ.pdf

Yeah, I was caught off-guard in a previous generation, when my youth pastor mentioned that his calling to a UPC church was denied based on his attempt to teach on Scriptural purity and other truths of the Gospel from Scripture.

Once the presbytery stops teaching a truth, it's clear the church will eventually slide away form that truth.

I'm presently in an EPC church. Evangelical Presbyterian Church . And yes, I'm very sensitive to that last sentence applying to the EPC as well. So far, it has been less a problem: the EPC allows for conservatives and liberals a platform to keep working with one another, "if by any means I may redeem some."

 

[needinganame]

@ heymikey
Thank you for actually posting the link. I felt it important that those searching this issue and commenting read the text for itself.

As far as the issue goes, within our congregation the focus has turned toward the issue of homophobia. But I believe the issue is the higher calling of the leadership to the church. Please refer to [FONT=&quot]1 Timothy 3:1-13. Were it not for my respect for space on this forum I would post the verse in its entirety.

And in my reference to the verse in 1 Timothy, my opposition is in regards to the sanctity of leadership. And that alone.

I do believe we are all called to evangelism and opening our doors to all sinners and recognizing the sin in our own hearts as well. But also, if the leadership does not pursue an active life of repentance and is witnessed accordingly, there lays the groundwork whereby there is no sacrifice we need to make in order to have eternal life.
[/FONT]

 

[needinganame]

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.

BINGO!!!

Thank you for the reality check!

 

[Jim the Puritan]

There are at least 4 major problems created by what PCUSA has done:

1. They have authorized homosexual clergy (least of the problems, in my opinion).

2. They have said that pastors, elders and deacons can commit adultery.

3. They have said that pastors, elders and deacons can be involved in any type of sexual relationship outside of the bounds of marriage (fornication, multiple hookups, going to prostitutes, pornography, etc.).

4. And the biggest, they have have said that pastors, elders and deacons no longer need to live a life in obedience to Scripture.

Even if I could accept 1, which I cannot, 2 through 4 are even bigger problems for me, with 4 being the biggest.

And if it is official denominational policy now that it is fine for ordained leaders to engage in sexual immorality, how can we expect anyone in the church to follow the commands of God in his Word regarding this?

PCUSA has committed spiritual suicide, and validation of the homosexual lifestyle is only one small part.

 

[bbbbbbb]

If it is any consolation, the PCUSA died a very long time ago. It is not dead yet, nor will it be for many years to come, but its spiritual death began in the 1930's when Modernists gained control of the seminaries and the General Assembly. Sadly, the Southern Presbyterian Church which had avoided Modernism to a large degree, fell into the mire when it merge with the UPC in 1968 and it has been downhill ever since. I parted ways with the PCUSA in 1970 and have never regretted my decision.

 

[needinganame]

In my angst, my first reaction was to leave. Philosophically, this is bothersome because I would be leaving behind the others to be held by the constitutional change. My question was "is this abandonment of my brothers and sisters" who have lived their lives in faith and search of scripture, but failed to realize the big picture of this change. I have decided to linger for awhile, expressing my opinion and Foundation behind it to the session. My hope is there is opportunity for my church to change. Many of us have written concerns which forced the session into a called meeting. I believe the issue was initially treated with disregard, but is now a kindled flame that will hopefully open the eyes of many. I believe our congregation could move forward in association with a different denomination, either newly formed or another branch i.e. EPC. I would sooner stick together in our current community of faith than to abandon my fellows in disdain.

@Jim The Puritan, I really appreciate your arguments. I have looked for reasons to understand support of the ratification of 10a. Your posts have provided solid ground and language to defend my position.

 

[supersoldier71]

Brothers and sisters,

How were our hearts changed? How did our hearts come to be, albiet imperfectly, oriented towards God? I believe that it was through the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit! And I also believe that the only proper, right and Christian reponse is to get on our knees and fight! Prayer. Earnest, heartfelt prayer for those who are being led astray, and for that matter, for those who are leading them astray.

It saddens and discourages me that the truth of Scripture is being hijacked. But I suspect that is has been this way forever; there were some pretty shady people proclaiming Christianity in the time of the Apostle John. And even in this, our God is Sovereign. So let us pray, and continue to preach the Gospel of Christ, and Him crucified, and in the end, we know that our God will be vindicated.

Good night and God bless.

 

[Jim the Puritan]

I found a good blog post which I think shares my position on this:

Voting on 10-A | Reveds's Blog

 

[heymikey80]

There are at least 4 major problems created by what PCUSA has done:

1. They have authorized homosexual clergy (least of the problems, in my opinion).

2. They have said that pastors, elders and deacons can commit adultery.

3. They have said that pastors, elders and deacons can be involved in any type of sexual relationship outside of the bounds of marriage (fornication, multiple hookups, going to prostitutes, pornography, etc.).

4. And the biggest, they have have said that pastors, elders and deacons no longer need to live a life in obedience to Scripture.

Even if I could accept 1, which I cannot, 2 through 4 are even bigger problems for me, with 4 being the biggest.

And if it is official denominational policy now that it is fine for ordained leaders to engage in sexual immorality, how can we expect anyone in the church to follow the commands of God in his Word regarding this?

PCUSA has committed spiritual suicide, and validation of the homosexual lifestyle is only one small part.

Good points.

My huge, huge worry is the way the PC(USA) judiciary will parse this new wording. From other cases I've seen go through the PC(USA) judiciary, here's what I expect will happen in coming years, and you'll have to look to find the decisions -- they'll be buried like the prior decisions.

Cases of process will come forward that some officeholders aren't attending to Jesus' prescribed sexual purity.

The defense will argue that the accused cannot submit joyfully to this prescription. Therefore they'll be released from it.​

It's not even likely to be about homosexuality. That would be a public double-whammy that the judiciary likely couldn't swing. So it'll be about some more minor matter, maybe pornography, say. Once the precedent is in place, though, that means any officer can commit any sin and because he finds the alternative "not joyful", he can reject it.

That's how other slippages have historically occurred in the PC(USA). The stipulation has been weakened so that it can be revisionist-interpreted.

I don't think the PC(USA) preaches the Gospel any more, so I don't consider the denomination more than a smattering of Gospel churches along with a majority of self-help social clubs. I'd pray for the conversion of the masses, and also pray for the separation and protection of the Gospel churches from further harm, regardless of where they go.

 

[hedrick]

There are at least 4 major problems created by what PCUSA has done:

1. They have authorized homosexual clergy (least of the problems, in my opinion).

2. They have said that pastors, elders and deacons can commit adultery.

3. They have said that pastors, elders and deacons can be involved in any type of sexual relationship outside of the bounds of marriage (fornication, multiple hookups, going to prostitutes, pornography, etc.).

4. And the biggest, they have have said that pastors, elders and deacons no longer need to live a life in obedience to Scripture.

Even if I could accept 1, which I cannot, 2 through 4 are even bigger problems for me, with 4 being the biggest.

And if it is official denominational policy now that it is fine for ordained leaders to engage in sexual immorality, how can we expect anyone in the church to follow the commands of God in his Word regarding this?

PCUSA has committed spiritual suicide, and validation of the homosexual lifestyle is only one small part.

2 - 4 are simply not true. I understand that people are sufficiently upset about this that they're not thinking carefully, but I would greatly appreciate it if you would try to be more careful.

The ordination standards are in Scripture and the Confessions. They are unchanged. G-6.0106b was passed because some people were interpreting Scripture and the Confessions to allow homosexuals, and other people wanted to put in an additional statement on sexual purity. But that concern didn't exist with adultery, as far as I can tell. G-6.0106b was only used in cases involving homosexuals. Adding G-6.0106b had no effect on adultery, nor will removing it. This change is not going to have any effect on anything other than ordination of gays, and that only in places that choose to adopt a certain interpretation of Scripture.

G-6.0106b didn't prohibit ordination of murderers, thieves or tax collectors either. You might as well accuse the original authors of G-6.0106b of accepting the ordination of murderers. But that's just as wrong-headed as the comments above. That paragraph is part of a document on the process of ordination. The place for moral standards is the confessions. We want to direct people to the confessions, to consider *all* of their statements, not just the ones somebody decides to repeat in G-6.0106b.

We also have not removed the requirement to live in accordance with Scripture. The requirement is still in the confessions. Indeed it's still in the new version of G-6.0106b, but it has been reworded. It's been reworded because G-6.0106b is directed at the ordaining body, not the candidate. Hence it tells the ordaining body to be guided by Scripture in assessing the candidate, rather than telling the candidate to obey Scripture. The old wording was a problem. In fact all of G-6.0106b was a problem. It was written in haste, so much so that in 2008 it was ruled to be unenforceable. It's turned into a symbol whose importance to people has little to do with reality. It hasn't meant anything for 3 years. We're replacing it with a statement that hopefully will encourage ordaining bodies to do a thorough assessment of candidates in accordance with Scripture and the Confessions. Everyone ought to think that's a good thing.

 

[Jim the Puritan]

Good points.

My huge, huge worry is the way the PC(USA) judiciary will parse this new wording. From other cases I've seen go through the PC(USA) judiciary, here's what I expect will happen in coming years, and you'll have to look to find the decisions -- they'll be buried like the prior decisions.

Cases of process will come forward that some officeholders aren't attending to Jesus' prescribed sexual purity.

The defense will argue that the accused cannot submit joyfully to this prescription. Therefore they'll be released from it.​

It's not even likely to be about homosexuality. That would be a public double-whammy that the judiciary likely couldn't swing. So it'll be about some more minor matter, maybe pornography, say. Once the precedent is in place, though, that means any officer can commit any sin and because he finds the alternative "not joyful", he can reject it.

That's how other slippages have historically occurred in the PC(USA). The stipulation has been weakened so that it can be revisionist-interpreted.

I don't think the PC(USA) preaches the Gospel any more, so I don't consider the denomination more than a smattering of Gospel churches along with a majority of self-help social clubs. I'd pray for the conversion of the masses, and also pray for the separation and protection of the Gospel churches from further harm, regardless of where they go.

Yes, as seen by a couple of cases this past year, they can't even decide what marriage is, in terms of disciplining ministers for administering gay "marriages."

Bible-believing churches in revisionist presbyteries are very much at risk. Despite all this talk about "tolerance" and that this will recognize individual conscience, we have already requested that our presbytery affirm they will not require us to allow homosexual pastors in our church, and they have refused.

 

[file13]

There are at least 4 major problems created by what PCUSA has done...

Amen!

My family and I almost joined a PCUSA church. But after meeting with the pastor and seeing his view of Scripture, we sadly had to go to the least worst acceptable option. Great bunch of people (the congregation was superb), but yeah, we saw the writing on the wall and sure enough, there it is. They managed to do something worse then even the Episcopal Church or the ELCA Lutherans....

 

[hedrick]

Good points.

My huge, huge worry is the way the PC(USA) judiciary will parse this new wording. From other cases I've seen go through the PC(USA) judiciary, here's what I expect will happen in coming years, and you'll have to look to find the decisions -- they'll be buried like the prior decisions.

It's pretty easy to guess what will happen. The judiciary committees are lawyers. They don't want to make theological and moral decisions. They want to interpret the Book of Order. Their cases typically involve whether bodies have followed proper processes that protect everyone's rights. I think they do a good job of that.

But interpreting Scripture and the Confessions is not their job. It's the job of sessions, presbyteries and the GA. If you look at the PJC decisions on G-6.010b, you'll see that many of them were delivered with a note begging the GA to change things so they could get out of that business. You'll also see that they interpreted G-6.0106b *very* narrowly. It was nearly impossible to win a case under it. The excuses got increasingly inventive. It turns into what someone else called "don't ask don't tell", except that it was harder to get them to take action than it was the military. I believe only one gay was actually stopped from ordination.

The kinds of cases you talk about don't belong in front of the judicial commissions. They will do their best to refuse to hear them, and when they do, they will take an approach that the plaintiff won't like.

Sorry guys, but under the Presbyterian system we have to depend upon presbyteries to interpret Scripture. If they don't, there's no real way around it other to involve the GA (or the synods, while they still last). Asking a group of lawyers to intervene isn't going to buy much. I have nothing against lawyers. I think they have made a number of useful decisions. But their job isn't to interpret Scripture.

I don't think the PC(USA) preaches the Gospel any more, so I don't consider the denomination more than a smattering of Gospel churches along with a majority of self-help social clubs. I'd pray for the conversion of the masses, and also pray for the separation and protection of the Gospel churches from further harm, regardless of where they go.

That has to do with what you think the Gospel is. I think our church does a really good job preaching it.

 

[heymikey80]

2 - 4 are simply not true. I understand that people are sufficiently upset about this that they're not thinking carefully, but I would greatly appreciate it if you would try to be more careful.

I'd have to direct you to the change in wording. There's nothing that requires the candidate be in conformity with the ordination standard. There's only a determination and a reflection of "joyful submission". The "suitability" is no longer written as conformity with the standard. It's a "determination" of the "governing body", which is essentially conferred authority now, it's no longer delegated the authority based on another standard.

The ordination standards are in Scripture and the Confessions. They are unchanged. G-6.0106b was passed because some people were interpreting Scripture and the Confessions to allow homosexuals, and other people wanted to put in an additional statement on sexual purity. But that concern didn't exist with adultery, as far as I can tell. G-6.0106b was only used in cases involving homosexuals. Adding G-6.0106b had no effect on adultery, nor will removing it. This change is not going to have any effect on anything other than ordination of gays, and that only in places that choose to adopt a certain interpretation of Scripture.

I'm pretty sure that the release of Scriptural adherence, and in actuality the reduction of the ordination standards to "as decided" instead of "as written" will take the PC(USA) down. Because it's making the governing body unassailable in its determinations. There is no canon of adherence. The governing body determines suitability.

For the record, this makes the governing body an originating authority, contrary to the Standards, which say it's intended to be a delegated authority to determine all issues by the Scriptures, primarily.

In other words, the change itself is its own repudiation of the way authority should work, according to the Standards. So the Standards have already been subverted by it.

The fact is, no governing body should determine "suitability". That's just window-dressing, a blank check allowing the governing body full range of powers. Here's a great word to switch out with it: "subscription".

 

[Jim the Puritan]

2 - 4 are simply not true. I understand that people are sufficiently upset about this that they're not thinking carefully, but I would greatly appreciate it if you would try to be more careful.

The ordination standards are in Scripture and the Confessions. They are unchanged. G-6.0106b was passed because some people were interpreting Scripture and the Confessions to allow homosexuals, and other people wanted to put in an additional statement on sexual purity. But that concern didn't exist with adultery, as far as I can tell. G-6.0106b was only used in cases involving homosexuals. Adding G-6.0106b had no effect on adultery, nor will removing it. This change is not going to have any effect on anything other than ordination of gays, and that only in places that choose to adopt a certain interpretation of Scripture.

G-6.0106b didn't prohibit ordination of murderers, thieves or tax collectors either. You might as well accuse the original authors of G-6.0106b of accepting the ordination of murderers. But that's just as wrong-headed as the comments above. That paragraph is part of a document on the process of ordination. The place for moral standards is the confessions. We want to direct people to the confessions, to consider *all* of their statements, not just the ones somebody decides to repeat in G-6.0106b.

We also have not removed the requirement to live in accordance with Scripture. The requirement is still in the confessions. Indeed it's still in the new version of G-6.0106b, but it has been reworded. It's been reworded because G-6.0106b is directed at the ordaining body, not the candidate. Hence it tells the ordaining body to be guided by Scripture in assessing the candidate, rather than telling the candidate to obey Scripture. The old wording was a problem. In fact all of G-6.0106b was a problem. It was written in haste, so much so that in 2008 it was ruled to be unenforceable. It's turned into a symbol whose importance to people has little to do with reality. It hasn't meant anything for 3 years. We're replacing it with a statement that hopefully will encourage ordaining bodies to do a thorough assessment of candidates in accordance with Scripture and the Confessions. Everyone ought to think that's a good thing.

G-6.0106b simply reflected what Scripture requires. The fact it was even necessary was the fact that segments of the Church were pushing sexual immorality, not that such things had been permitted before.

You wrote: "The ordination standards are in Scripture and the Confessions. They are unchanged."

Yes, but now the new amendment says they can be ignored. If they couldn't be ignored, then unrepentant homosexuals still could not be ordained, and this would have been an exercise in futility. But obviously the whole point of this exercise was to validate that this sexual sin is now ok for ministers, elders and deacons.

And if unrepentant homosexuals can now be ordained, then every other unrepentant candidate engaging in sexual sin would have to be treated the same way.

I keep on hearing you make these arguments over and over again, but they don't relate to reality, they are just sophistry to justify as "no big deal" what God has said is wrong. And no one is buying these arguments.

The fact is the liberal wing of PCUSA has badly miscalculated what Christians' reaction is going to be to this situation, and no amount of intellectual justification is going to get around what has happened.

Just this past Sunday one of our pastors had to go through the explanation with some of our congregation about how our church could continue to be part of a denomination that is allowing adulterers to come into ministry. And our pastor had to admit there are now no standards in PCUSA.

We should not be wasting our time having to explain to people what is so obviously wrong, we should be engaged in spreading the Gospel. Which is why I suspect that an awful lot of churches are going to realize within the next year they simply have to walk out of the denomination rather than constantly having to defend the denomination's engaging in unrighteousness before God.

 

[heymikey80]

It's pretty easy to guess what will happen. The judiciary committees are lawyers. They don't want to make theological and moral decisions. They want to interpret the Book of Order. Their cases typically involve whether bodies have followed proper processes that protect everyone's rights. I think they do a good job of that.

But interpreting Scripture and the Confessions is not their job. It's the job of sessions, presbyteries and the GA. If you look at the PJC decisions on G-6.010b, you'll see that many of them were delivered with a note begging the GA to change things so they could get out of that business. You'll also see that they interpreted G-6.0106b *very* narrowly. It was nearly impossible to win a case under it. The excuses got increasingly inventive. It turns into what someone else called "don't ask don't tell", except that it was harder to get them to take action than it was the military. I believe only one gay was actually stopped from ordination.

The kinds of cases you talk about don't belong in front of the judicial commissions. They will do their best to refuse to hear them, and when they do, they will take an approach that the plaintiff won't like.

Sorry guys, but under the Presbyterian system we have to depend upon presbyteries to interpret Scripture. If they don't, there's no real way around it other to involve the GA (or the synods, while they still last). Asking a group of lawyers to intervene isn't going to buy much. I have nothing against lawyers. I think they have made a number of useful decisions. But their job isn't to interpret Scripture.

That has to do with what you think the Gospel is. I think our church does a really good job preaching it.

Individual churches (what few do preach the Gospel) are not the PC(USA). And you know what I'm talking about. One church I went to rivalled a Unitarian church nearby. Another I'm aware of doesn't talk about Jesus.

They're social, "group improvement" clubs.

And an assembly of them now gain control over who to approve and disapprove in the denomination's offices.

Y'think that's going to improve their decisions? The judiciary commission was deluged with cases from these same groups. Now their decisions hold sway by fiat. Why worry about judiciary complaints, now? They're ascendant, and uncontrolled by the Standards.

 

[hedrick]

I'd have to direct you to the change in wording. There's nothing that requires the candidate be in conformity with the ordination standard. There's only a determination and a reflection of "joyful submission". The "suitability" is no longer written as conformity with the standard. It's a "determination" of the "governing body", which is essentially conferred authority now, it's no longer delegated the authority based on another standard.

Huh? It asks the ordaining bodies to assess the candidates using Scripture.

You can't turn PCUSA sessions into PCA sessions by changing the wording of the Book of Order. Many sessions will do things you don't like. But telling sessions to be guided by Scripture in their evaluation is no less useful than saying that the candidates are to obey Scripture. If you're not looking at the requirement purely on the basis of whether you can hang people who ordain gays, it's actually stronger.

The old version didn't actually tell the Session to make a serious assessment of the candidate. It just said they couldn't ordain gays. (I know that's not the way the wording went, but everyone knows that's what it meant, and that's the way all ordaining bodies read it.) Of course there are limits to how much we can actually affect the behavior of sessions by changing the Book of Order. But to the extent that they pay attention, it now asks for a fairly extensive investigation. One thing they are specifically asked to check is whether the candidate has both the ability and commitment to carry out the ordination vows. One of them is "Will you fulfill your office in obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture, and be continually guided by our confessions?"

I think the new wording is *much* stronger in terms of what it asks Sessions to do, so much so that it's going to take some work to make it have an effect. It just doesn't focus on stopping the ordination of gays, which is really the criterion under which a lot of people are evaluating the change.

 

[Jim the Puritan]

Various groups are now starting to put together materials to enable churches and individuals to oppose and fight the PCUSA's present departure from the Gospel and embracing of things against God's will.

One start is the following page at the Layman Online:

The Layman Online

For example, you can sign and deliver the following declaration to your church and demand they take a stand:

‘I Choose This Day!’

​

On this day of our Lord, I affirm my faith in Jesus Christ as the Way, the Truth and the Life. He is God’s gracious answer to human sin, and He is my personal Lord and Savior. I affirm Christ alone.

Further, I affirm my belief that the Bible is God’s holy Word. It is through Scripture alone that I am assured of His salvation and am instructed regarding His will for my life. I affirm Scripture alone.

Further, I affirm that the marriage of a man and a woman is instituted by God and blessed by our Lord Jesus Christ. I testify with Scripture that “Whom God has joined together, let no one put asunder,” and that sexual relations outside this covenant of marriage are contrary to the will of God.

I grieve over the apparent departure of the Presbyterian Church (USA) from these Scriptural truths, and I am estranged from its policies and programs that do not affirm Christ alone, Scripture alone and the holy institution of marriage alone as the divinely ordained context for human sexual activity.

Therefore, I call on the Session of my church to initiate a prayerful study of PC(USA) policies and programs and the nature of our church’s relationship with the PC(USA). I ask that the Session report its findings and recommendations to our congregation on or before Reformation Sunday, October 30, 2011.

Other resources here: The Layman Online

 

[hedrick]

Yes, but now the new amendment says they can be ignored. If they couldn't be ignored, then unrepentant homosexuals still could not be ordained, and this would have been an exercise in futility. But obviously the whole point of this exercise was to validate that this sexual sin is now ok for ministers, elders and deacons.

To show that you'd need to show that people who favored 10-A wanted to allow adultery, or show that the change is likely to increase the number of adulterous elders and deacons ordained. You can't do that because it isn't true. (I'm sure you'll find someone in the PCUSA who is in favor of just about anything. But not enough to make it a particular concern that merits calling it out in G-6.0106b.)

It was installed to emphasize certain things that people thought ordaining bodies would otherwise ignore. That's why it says nothing about murderers or any number of other sins. That doesn't mean it was tolerant of them. It just means that they wanted to emphasize problem areas. But adultery isn't a problem area. Well, it is in the sense that we have a lot of problem with adultery, but not in the sense that we have 50% of the presbyteries thinking that it's acceptable. It was an unnecessary emphasis, which they did in order to make G-6.0106b more politically palatable by not just mentioning homosexuals. I listened to the debate at the GA. That's really what happened.

Why aren't you and your pastor equally upset about all the sins that weren't mentioned in the original G-6.0106b? Presumably because you think everyone agrees. (Not that we have no elders who are covetous or have other sins, but no one is trying to reinterpret Scripture to say that it's OK.) But someone who wanted to make cheap debating points could claim that the authors of G-6.0106b were so focused on sexual sins that they didn't care about anything else. I don't believe that, but this is the same kind of tactics that are being used now about its repeal.