PCUSA takes another step away from the Scriptures

[hedrick]

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?

Boy, that's hard to determine. The only really official standards are the Book of Order, the Confessions and Scripture. There have been various working documents prepared to guide the GA, but those don't have official status. Typically the ones involving non-traditional sexual standards were rejected.

I looked at a list of all actions involving sexuality by the GA. The problem is that some of the descriptions were cryptic, so I could have missing something. What I see is the following:

There are probably some things in 1970 and maybe 1978, but I assume those are too old to be interesting to you.

In 1991 there was a substantial report on sexuality. I believe it was the last major study. Neither majority nor minority report was adopted, and it's pretty clear that the majority view (which was non-traditional) was rejected vehemently.

In 1994, the GA instructed the Congregational Ministries Division to prepare material for youth encouraging premarital chastity. That's the most recent official action I can find. To my knowledge all material for youth still promotes chastity, although of course it's hard to know exactly what teachers actually say.

I don't think you'll find any official statements that extra-marital intercourse is OK. Our congregation tends to be on the liberal side (for the PCUSA -- remember that despite the PR you're hearing, the PCUSA is still only moderately liberal) I think you'll find a de facto position among many that it's pretty normal for young adults to do some sexual experimentation, and we'll tolerate a certain amount of it. But I don't think more than a few would say it's actually OK (nor would we quite tell kids that it's OK). Adultery and prostitution are viewed less charitably. Of course more conservative congregations would take a harder line.

As far as I know, you won't even find statements that gay sex is OK. It's really hard to know what people really think about it. I guess many are willing to ordain gay officers, but I think fewer would be prepared to say that gay sex is actually OK, and I'm not hearing any suggestion that such a statement should be made. We had a meeting this Sunday about the topic after church. Our church is nearly unanimous in supporting the change. Many members see this as important in supporting gay members of their families. But I'm not so sure that many of them are actually candidates for church office. For us I think this may be more symbolic (of what? I'm a bit fuzzy) than an indication that we're going to have lots of gay officers or that our sexual standards are changing. For others, I think they simply don't think it's worth the fight to keep a fairly small number of more radical churches in line. Of course that in itself says something. But the PCUSA has a history of allowing a reasonable degree of variation. I'm pretty sure that you would not be able to get any kind of statement past the GA that said sex outside marriage is acceptable.

Actually, I think if G-6.0106b had been carefully worded with the goal of continuing to be acceptable over the long haul, rather than a rushed attempt to lock in a majority position that was about to vanish, a statement that fidelity and chastity are standards for officers could have been put in place that would remain. At this point I don't think anyone wants to go there again, even though in fact most of us probably have that as our standard.

 

[Jim the Puritan]

A couple of thoughts.

A lot of the more conservative presbyteries I understand are adopting the former national "fidelity and chastity" language as the presbytery standard, so the now repealed constitutional language is being re-adopted at the presbytery level.

Second, I know in our church the pastors will not marry a heterosexual couple that is living together. That question is asked in the premarital counseling sessions, and if so the couple is told to separate and remain chaste (I think for a minimum of 6 months) and then to come back and begin the process again if they are still a couple and still wish to get married in our church.

I think most of the time the people in that situation end up going to another church that is willing to look the other way. But our pastors don't feel they are in the wedding business in any event, and they actually exercise quite a bit of discretion to not marry people they think are in a wrongful relationship or in a relationship that is likely to end in divorce.

 

[hedrick]

Let me be more specific about G-6.0106b. The Presbyterian system, going back to 1729, has vested session and other ordaining bodies with a fair amount of responsibility to determine permissible deviations from the standards.

G-6.0106b was an attempt to remove this for homosexuality. But because they didn't want to be quite so open about the monomania directed at homosexuality, they tried to be more general. The problem is that they ended up so general that you couldn't possibly implement it literally. There are lots of confessions, with lots of statements about sin. You had to make priority judgements about how to apply the confessions to a given candidate. Furthermore, they didn't do anything about G-6.0108, which permits freedom of Scriptural interpretation, and allows ordaining bodies to judge how severe departures are. The issue with gays is precisely Scriptural interpretation, despite a somewhat weird attempt to say you could think what you want about what Scripture said but you couldn't put it into practice.

For these reasons, in 2008 the GA issued an authoritative interpretation that said that regardless of G-6.0106b, ordaining bodies still had the responsibility of deciding whether any particular candidate's deviation is acceptable.

Had the folks writing G-6.0106b been satisfied to raise fidelity and chastity as particularly worthy of exploring with the candidate, the passage would have remained today. Not just because it would be in some sense unenforceable, but because most of us still think those are important standards. Had they been smart enough to somehow modify G-6.0108 to exempt homosexuality from the normal discretion, it would probably still have been removed this year, but at least the 2008 interpretation wouldn't have been possible. However wording that change would have been nearly impossible without turning the PCUSA into the Catholic Church.

The problem is that they overreached, but weren't clever enough to think about the likely result in the hands of a hostile GA. You might say that they shouldn't need to do that, but the whole reason for rushing it was that it was obvious that later GA's would not share their ideals.

The result is that we end up worse than we would have been had they been less intent on being manipulative. We are now put into the position where we look like we're more radical than we actually are, misleading both our friends and our enemies.

I was about to say that this is what we get for having a constitution that only take a majority vote to change. (The original G-6.0106b passed with 56% of the presbyteries.) But the reason for that is that the Book of Order is supposed to be procedural. Our doctrine is the book of confessions, and that takes 2/3 to change. So the first problem is that they were trying to solve what is really a doctrinal disagreement (how literally we interpret Paul) in the Book of Order.

 

[supersoldier71]

Hedrick,

To be clear brother, I am not your enemy. I'm a concerned brother, and I am trying to understand PCUSA's position more clearly. I am concerned because while many elevate homosexual behaviors as somehow more sinful than any other sin, it seems that it would be be at least as damaging to attempt to minimize it. From the outside looking in, it seems as though the minimalization of the sinfulness of homosexual activities is already complete, and the process of legitmizing those actions is well underway.

Sin is as locked into our genes as breathing, no doubt. But the mark - one of the marks - of a true follower of and believer in Jesus Christ, at least in my opinion, is when we become sensitized to our own sins, and we repent, and ask God to change our hearts to remove that sin from us. How can a person so desensitized to their own habitual sins that they institutionalize the sin (same-sex "marriage") be expected to assist other believers in moving away from theirs? It seems that the plank in the practicing homosexual's eye would prevent them from addressing the speck in their brother's eye.

I'm having a hard time seeing how this issue, or more precisely, the PCUSA's "clarification" of this issue could result in a stronger, more unified, more Christ-centered church.

Good day and God bless.

 

[hedrick]

A couple of thoughts.

A lot of the more conservative presbyteries I understand are adopting the former national "fidelity and chastity" language as the presbytery standard, so the now repealed constitutional language is being re-adopted at the presbytery level.

Correct. And to some extent they can do that. However they can't add requirements for office, and they can't declare any particular interpretation an essential tenet of the Reformed faith. But they don't need to add anything. It's already there in the confessions. They just need to enforce them strictly.

It's not clear to me how is is going to play out. Will the denomination agree to have non-geographical presbyteries? Will conservatives be willing to be part of a denomination where a few gays have been ordained openly, even though they haven't and won't do it in their presbytery? I simply don't know.

The national office has issued an FAQ. It says that a presbytery is never required to accept transfer of someone from another presbytery. So the fact that someone has been ordained elsewhere doesn't give them a right to be a member in your presbytery. It's unusual to reject someone from another presbytery. But candidates from somewhere else are examined, so it's always been a possibility.

Second, I know in our church the pastors will not marry a heterosexual couple that is living together. That question is asked in the premarital counseling sessions, and if so the couple is told to separate and remain chaste (I think for a minimum of 6 months) and then to come back and begin the process again if they are still a couple and still wish to get married in our church.

It's an interesting approach. Not sure how you'd reconcile it with 1 Cor 7:9, of course.

 

[hedrick]

It seems that the plank in the practicing homosexual's eye would prevent them from addressing the speck in their brother's eye.

This is a misuse of the passage. Jesus is specifically telling you that you have to deal with the plank in *your* eye. By using it this way you're ignoring what he was trying to say. But then the whole conservative position on this issue is a rejection of Mat 7:3 anyway, isn't it? It's taking a couple of things that Paul says in passing, and turning them into the heart of a pseudo-Gospel of human purity, designed to let people maintain their self-righteousness. I doubt Paul would be happy with how he's being used.

 

[supersoldier71]

This is a misuse of the passage. Jesus is specifically telling you that you have to deal with the plank in *your* eye. By using it this way you're ignoring what he was trying to say. But then the whole conservative position on this issue is a rejection of Mat 7:3 anyway, isn't it?

An egregious misuse of that passage would be to use it as a club to beat down church discipline. Do you think this passage instructs us to never assist our fellow believers in identifying sin in their lives? No, I do not think that's what the Lord is instructing us to do.

And to clarify, how is someone in a church leadership position, who engages in willful, habitual and perpetually unrepentant sin supposed to assist anyone in addressing ANY sin?

 

[Jim the Puritan]

It's not clear to me how is is going to play out. Will the denomination agree to have non-geographical presbyteries? Will conservatives be willing to be part of a denomination where a few gays have been ordained openly, even though they haven't and won't do it in their presbytery? I simply don't know.

Really, unless non-geographic presbyteries are ok'd, that will be the end of the denomination.

 

[hedrick]

Really, unless non-geographic presbyteries are ok'd, that will be the end of the denomination.

Maybe, maybe not. A lot of the conservatives are already in conservative presbyteries. The first test is gong to be whether we're willing to leave them unmolested. If so, then we can look at transferring a few congregations into the nearest conservative presbytery (and probably the reverse as well).

However the Fellowship isn't depending upon that. They haven't made a definite proposal yet, but it sort of sounds like they're thinking of a structure that cuts across the current presbyteries. While I don't know specifically what they're thinking of, imagine that there is a non-geographical group to which congregations join by a formal convenient, and by which they can be held accountable. I could conceive of it working, as long as their geographical presbyteries (to which they would presumably still belong) can avoid asking Kenyonesque questions.

I actually don't know why these people aren't just leaving. But they seem to be interested in building appropriate structures within the PCUSA.

And remember, a lot of the conservatives were leaving anyway. Maybe this decision hastened it, but I'd be surprised if anyone leaves who wasn't planning to before.

 

[A New Dawn]

I have to say that, coming from a church that moved in a liberal direction from a very conservative one, it somehow just doesn't seem fair that the liberal members decide to change the nature of the church to make it match their own beliefs, forcing the conservative members out on the street, bereft that the church that they loved is now inhospitable. It seems that the more appropriate course of action is for the liberal members to leave and create a church that meets their desires and expectations, leaving the church as it stands to the conservative members.

 

[hedrick]

I have to say that, coming from a church that moved in a liberal direction from a very conservative one, it somehow just doesn't seem fair that the liberal members decide to change the nature of the church to make it match their own beliefs, forcing the conservative members out on the street, bereft that the church that they loved is now inhospitable. It seems that the more appropriate course of action is for the liberal members to leave and create a church that meets their desires and expectations, leaving the church as it stands to the conservative members.

There are problems with this.

The major change was actually in 1925. That is when the 5 "fundamentals" were rejected. Not absolutely, but as required beliefs. It is precisely those fundamentals that our conservatives value.

Maybe liberals should have formed a separate church, but the ones who wanted to have a conservative church were the smaller part, so it didn't make a lot of sense. I actually think that transition was handled badly. I believe the mainstream church should have treated conservatives better. I think we're prepared to do so now.

But by the time G-6.0106b was passed, there was a half century of development based on that decision. The theology schools and leadership generally did not support inerrancy and the other things that lead to rejection of gay sex. A poll done before the first authoritative interpretation showed that clergy and ordinary members pretty much held the same views. The elders were more conservative. All were split on this issue. But the direction of the church was pretty widely known as moderately liberal. Otherwise why was the PCA and OPC formed? To suggest that suddenly the Church should reverse 50 years of change, turn into a clone of the PCA, and have the liberals form a new church may make interesting rhetoric, but it's not a serous suggestion.

A lot of us think that G-6.0106b is so badly worded because it had to be done in haste. It was clear that the GA would shortly no longer hold the line on gay ordination. It was obvious that the approach the PCUSA had been taking for more than 50 years would eventually lead to ordination of gays.

We might lose something like 10% of the churches, although I think that's an overestimate. The denomination most of them want already exists: the OPC. It makes no sense to suggest that we should turn into the OPC and have the majority of the church form a new church which would be like the PCUSA is now.

It's 85 years too late for your suggestion. I'm sorry if you've been misled, but if you're a member of the PCUSA, you joined a church that is not conservative. I hope it will be willing to welcome conservatives and find ways for them to function effectively. But it's not going to have ordination policies that enforce conservative preferences, because that's not what we are. We explicitly rejected that approach in 1925 with the Auburn Affirmation.

As I've said before, if the conservatives had been less concerned about trying to play polity games and more concerned about promoting sexual fidelity, I think a more broad-based wording emphasizing fidelity and chastity could have been crafted. But they wanted a way to enforce their views on a church where they knew the majority of leaders disagreed. That can't lead to anything good.

Among the problems: the Book of Order is a procedural document. It is interpreted by lawyers. Changes are possible by majority. The confessions are our document about theology and morals. It is interpreted by sessions and presbyteries. Changes are by 2 / 3 vote. Both documents had intentionally been designed so that the confessions set general principles and sessions and presbyteries interpreted them. But they were unhappy with the decisions of the people who should make them, so they tried to write theological and moral statements into the book of order. But that's not where they belong. And once they started being enforced by lawyers, the result was chaos. You just need to look at the PJC decisions. It made a mockery of the rule. It turned into "don't ask, don't tell" because of oddities of the wording. And as of 2008 it was made unenforceable by a GA authoritative interpretation anyway. That's right. The rule everyone is so worried about has not been enforceable since 2008, and during its lifetime maybe prevented the ordination of one gay pastor. Many others snuck past because of technicalities. But that's what you get for asking lawyers to make decisions that should be in the hands of sessions and presbyteries.

It also turned the discussion away from actual theology and ethics to law and polity. There hasn't been a serious discussion of sexual ethics since 1991, and that rejected the papers of the theologians asked to think about it. Since then, we've focused on trying to find a legal or polity way to avoid chaos. A lot of us our hoping that now that we've removed the mistaken legalities, maybe we'll have the courage to have a real discussion about the substance.

 

[HereIStand]

I have to say that, coming from a church that moved in a liberal direction from a very conservative one, it somehow just doesn't seem fair that the liberal members decide to change the nature of the church to make it match their own beliefs, forcing the conservative members out on the street, bereft that the church that they loved is now inhospitable. It seems that the more appropriate course of action is for the liberal members to leave and create a church that meets their desires and expectations, leaving the church as it stands to the conservative members.

I agree. One way to look at the history of what's happened in the PCUSA (and I'm deriving this from George Marsden) is that PCUSA conservatives likely once thought that liberals were genuinely seeking after truth and would eventually arrive at orthodoxy. They would just get there by a different way. However, if people (lacking grace) are predisposed to disbelieve a fundamental Christian truth than studying the Bible, theology, or the confessions won't guide them into believing it.

 

[supersoldier71]

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness..."

If we are to take this as true, then whether Paul mentioned something "in passing" or not, it's Scripture, breathed out by God.

If someone does not accept that 2 Timothy 3:16 is true, I don't really see how any sort of theological agreement can be reached, because at every major point of contention, Scripture will be disregarded as non-important.

Is the Bible the word of God? Or does it contain the word of God? How one answers that question tends to inform the rest of their theology.

Good day and God bless.

 

[Jim the Puritan]

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness..."

If we are to take this as true, then whether Paul mentioned something "in passing" or not, it's Scripture, breathed out by God.

If someone does not accept that 2 Timothy 3:16 is true, I don't really see how any sort of theological agreement can be reached, because at every major point of contention, Scripture will be disregarded as non-important.

Is the Bible the word of God? Or does it contain the word of God? How one answers that question tends to inform the rest of their theology.

Good day and God bless.

You've hit the nail on the head. The real reason my church has totally rejected PCUSA's position (by unanimous votes now of session and congregation) is not just that they have mainstreamed the acceptance of sexual immorality into the denomination, but that to do this they have to reject the Word of God as having any authority. Certain posters have been saying this has been true since 1925, but that 1925 memo for some reason never got delivered to our church.

If you go to Biblegateway, and start doing word searches in the New Testament on such words as "purity," "sexual immorality," and "Holy Spirit," you will see a whole raft of Scriptures come up that clearly demonstrate PCUSA's position is totally at odds with the Word, and that PCUSA is now in total disobedience and rebellion to God.

The bottom line is that the Holy Spirit cannot be in a place or in people where there is sexual immorality. That is why the liberal churches are all dying, because the Holy Spirit is not present there. He left long ago, and ever since they have been trying to replace Him with false spirits such as the spirit of homosexuality, feminism, or instead teaching that simply doing good works is all that is necessary. And that all people are going to Heaven, whether or not the have given their lives to Jesus, and that there is no need for repentance from sin and amendment of life in following Him.

The liberal churches are sending thousands of people to Hell who don't know any better, and that should upset us. The fact that Scripture says that false teachers will receive heavy punishment on Judgment Day really does not offset that. Although God will deal with them severely, we still have an obligation to try save the lost from their clutches.

 

[hedrick]

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness..."

Remember that I'm primarily giving you the PCUSA position, not mine. We had this out in 1925. In the earlier 1920's the predecessor denomination considered inerrancy to be an essential. Also the virgin birth and few other doctrines that conservatives also tend to hold. However a group of theologians, both conservative and moderate, wrote the Auburn Affirmation. While many of the authors accepted inerrancy and the other doctrines, they viewed them as not essential.

Here is the core of what it says on this topic:

There is no assertion in the Scriptures that their writers were kept "from error." The Confession of Faith does not make this assertion; and it is significant that this assertion is not to be found in the Apostle's Creed or the Nicene Creed or in any of the great Reformation confessions. The doctrine of inerrancy, intended to enhance the authority of the Scriptures, in fact impairs their supreme authority for faith and life, and weakens the testimony of the church to the power of God unto salvation through Jesus Christ. We hold that the General Assembly of 1923, in asserting that "the Holy Spirit did so inspire, guide and move the writers of Holy Scripture as to keep them from error," spoke without warrant of the Scriptures or of the Confession of Faith. We hold rather to the words of the Confession of Faith, that the Scriptures "are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life." (Conf. I, ii)​

.
While this was never accepted as a formal document, it was generally agreed to, and became the basis for the PCUSA's handling of these issues. The people who wanted a church where inerrancy is considered a mandatory idea left, and are now in the PCA and OPC. Note that conservatives remained, and remain to this day. But the denomination does not consider inerrancy mandatory, nor any beliefs that follow from it. In my opinion this includes the conservative view on homosexuality.

As to your quotation, it is based on a mistranslation. The word for inspiration does not mean "God-breathed" any more than goodbye means "God be with you." And even if it did, such a term would not mandate any specific approach to applying Scripture, except saying that it is useful for establishing doctrine and morals.

The reason for the comment "in passing" is that there are things Paul gives a careful exposition on, and things he doesn't. If he said "I have it from the Lord that homosexuality is incompatible with God's will" we would be in a very different situation. But there is no evidence that he has thought about the issue himself or passed on anything from Jesus' teaching. Another example of this distinction is his treatment of slavery. He has given thought to how a slave owner should treat his slaves. He treatment is certainly correct. But he apparently did not consider the possibility that slavery itself might not be a good idea. After all, it was condoned in the OT. This is a relevant example, because inerrancy was in fact used to defend slavery.

I know this will fall on deaf ears, because I know that you identify inerrancy and the associated traditional reading of Scripture with the Gospel itself. However that approach is not mandatory in the PCUSA, and I believe is increasingly uncommon.

 

[NvxiaLee]

Many Christians have already fled PCUSA. I don't know if that's a bad thing or a good thing. It's good in that the Church has moved away from Christ. It's bad in that with Christians leaving, the Church only accelerates away from Christ. But, now that the Church openly approves of practicing homosexuals as shepherds, it's time for every Christian to leave. The last Christian out, we'll call him Lot.

 

[Jim the Puritan]

Many Christians have already fled PCUSA. I don't know if that's a bad thing or a good thing. It's good in that the Church has moved away from Christ. It's bad in that with Christians leaving, the Church only accelerates away from Christ. But, now that the Church openly approves of practicing homosexuals as shepherds, it's time for every Christian to leave. The last Christian out, we'll call him Lot.

The real question that will have to be debated is whether at this point we flee or fight. The good thing is that now for the first time those who are disobedient to God's Word are out in the open; before it has all been niceties about having "conversations."

My feel is that we need to take the church back presbytery by presbytery, probably initially by forming our own organizations within the PCUSA and starving the liberal presbyteries and national denomination of money. Most of the liberal churches are dying, and if we can just survive the process of letting them die, then the Lord can begin to reassert control.

But right now it is clear that the denomination is under God's condemnation.

 

[Faith.Man]

The real question that will have to be debated is whether at this point we flee or fight. The good thing is that now for the first time those who are disobedient to God's Word are out in the open; before it has all been niceties about having "conversations."

My feel is that we need to take the church back presbytery by presbytery, probably initially by forming our own organizations within the PCUSA and starving the liberal presbyteries and national denomination of money. Most of the liberal churches are dying, and if we can just survive the process of letting them die, then the Lord can begin to reassert control.

But right now it is clear that the denomination is under God's condemnation.

Is this the only issue that the PCUSA is too liberal on or is this just the tipping point indicating a bigger problem?

 

[Jim the Puritan]

Is this the only issue that the PCUSA is too liberal on or is this just the tipping point indicating a bigger problem?

I would say it's symptomatic. I know our church has had other problems with the denomination, including changing the understanding of the Trinity from Father, Son and Holy Spirit, to "Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer," the fact that PCUSA is increasingly adopting universalist theology, the spreading of feminist theology (the Sophia Movement), and encouraging of joint worship with non-Christian groups.

But the thing about blessing immoral sexual activity is that it is so clearly against the Word of God that you know that if someone is willing to disobey God in this area, disobedience is going on in a lot of other areas as well. It's like a generic marker, if you will, that a church is no longer aligned with God.

 

[hedrick]

I would say it's symptomatic. I know our church has had other problems with the denomination, including changing the understanding of the Trinity from Father, Son and Holy Spirit, to "Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer," the fact that PCUSA is increasingly adopting universalist theology, the spreading of feminist theology (the Sophia Movement), and encouraging of joint worship with non-Christian groups.

I see a lot of inclusivism, but not so much universalism. Maybe I don't move in the right circles. However universalism seems to be showing up among evangelicals as well. My problem with it is that Jesus seems to talk a lot about a judgement. And there are people who it's hard to believe are actually saved by Christ (though of course I can't claim to know anyone's heart). But I think inclusivism is acceptable to many evangelicals.

Similarly, the creator, redeemer and sustainer still shows up now and then, but it and sophia seem to have peaked 10 years ago. It's actually possible that some people using the terms are orthodox. Sophia can certainly be explained that way, and some people who used it may even intend it that way. Surely orthodox theology doesn't really think the the Holy Spirit is neuter or male. Sophia is a legitimate, Scriptural term, if properly understood, though it's not one I'd want to use as the primary term.

My problem with creator, redeemer and sustainer is that for me it has modalistic implications, but I'm not convinced that the people using it intended it that way. They just wanted an alternative to use some of the time that wasn't overtly male, and those terms are, after all used in Scripture. I do hear it occasionally, but I don't think many people use it as their primary term for the Trinity.

No question there were some radical feminist theologians, but they were pretty roundly rejected by the mass of Presbyterians, and I don't see that changing in any significant way. Our theology has gotten a bit more conservative over the last couple of decades, and I don't see any sign of that reversing. I don't think we'll go back to the way that it was in 1900 either. We do want to make it clear we don't think God is a man, so occasional female imagery is likely to be with us permanently. But you can find occasional female images for God in Scripture as well.

I'm afraid generic language is with us too, although I hate it. Given that the NIV has gone that way, I'm afraid we're stuck with it. I actually considered using the ESV instead of the NRSV for that reason, but it's too literal for me to use on a normal basis. I really like Sproul's notes in the ESV Reformation Bible, but I miss too much of the meaning when compared with other translations.

I've reluctantly started using they as a third person singular in my own speech and writing. Apparently it's actually the normal historical term. The use of "one" seems to have been a fairly recent invention by an overly up-tight grammarian. But the plural version of Psalm 1, not to mention many other passages, seems to lose something in the translation.

However if you want to go back to the good old days, I think you're out of luck.

My view on this is that the mainline is probably going to die, but that it will be replaced by an evangelicalism that is theologically indistinguishable, but does a better job of involving people with the Gospel. I'm going through this now in my Church. There's nothing wrong with our theology. We get a reasonable number of people who wander in off the street and find us attractive. but we need to do better than get occasional random people, and we need to be more intentional about involving them. But there's no sign that people are turned off by our theology. Quite the contrary. A slightly more liberal evangelicalism will keep our strengths and add the traditional evangelical strengths. It's just stupid that we can't get it together to work that way.

I predict that even the conservative PCUSA churches will be accepting gays within a generation, and I wouldn't be shocked to see an occasional one now. If the OPC accepts many more PCUSA congregations, it will spread to them within the same timeframe.

(Why? Because conservatives honestly believe that there are is no such thing as a gay Christian. One way or another they're going to be forced to work with an increasing number of gay Christians. There are just too many accounts of former conservatives who after that experience ended up abandoning their ideas. Our conservatives aren't stupid, and they know that hate and bigotry are wrong. Experience will eventually change them. The same thing happened with Southern Christians and blacks. I really respect the many white Southern Christians who intentionally avoided passing their prejudices to the next generation. Despite the rhetoric from the left, conservative Christians aren't hateful people. So I know where they're end up.)