PCUSA takes another step away from the Scriptures

[heymikey80]

It's not a problem area, yet, Hedrick. I appreciate that you don't think the motivation is one way or another. However, when the wording can be exploited, then advocates of other ideas shall exploit it for their own motivations when they reach the point of exploitation.

That exploitation could happen tomorrow.

It's not even hard to demonstrate. It's been happening for 100 years in the Presbyterian Church assemblies.

 

[hedrick]

It's not a problem area, yet, Hedrick. I appreciate that you don't think the motivation is one way or another. However, when the wording can be exploited, then advocates of other ideas shall exploit it for their own motivations when they reach the point of exploitation.

That exploitation could happen tomorrow.

It's not even hard to demonstrate. It's been happening for 100 years in the Presbyterian Church assemblies.

But if you're going to take that point of view, you have to repeat the whole content of the confessions in the Book of Order. Why do you think that any problems will occur with specific sins that were named in the old G-6.0106b? Isn't it just as likely that challenges will come in other areas? Is the omission of other sins from G-6.0106b permission to do them?

Well, 85 years anyway. (In the first half of the 1920's they still enforced "the fundamentals.")

 

[heymikey80]

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

Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G‐1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G.14.0240; G‐ 14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W‐4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.​

That's guided by Scripture. Heck, if I throw a Bible in the direction of my bedroom, I'm guided to bed by Scripture.

Scriptural guidance is not Scriptural authority and adherence. It's the governing bodies' authority, with a li'l guide from Scripture.

The principle is described: it's "reflection", not adherence or submission, to the Lordship of Christ -- when it's joyful.

It's all very interesting. After a hundred years the Presbyterian Church still doesn't have a good candidacy scheme -- and it's being expanded to allow for pornea. Lovely. Even Finney (someone I'm aghast at) would be aghast at where this has gone.

 

[heymikey80]

But if you're going to take that point of view, you have to repeat the whole content of the confessions in the Book of Order. Why do you think that any problems will occur with specific sins that were named in the old G-6.0106b? Isn't it just as likely that challenges will come in other areas? Is the omission of other sins from G-6.0106b permission to do them?

Give people enough power to swing other deviations from Christian morality and certainly, of course, every other omission is a possible gap.

Just give it time. I'll also be waiting for the "living together" candidate who doesn't see anything wrong with it. I mean, cultural convention doesn't see this as an important demarcation line any more. So given enough people on committee ...

It'll keep happening that way, too.

Well, 85 years anyway. (In the first half of the 1920's they still enforced "the fundamentals.")

Nah, not past 1903. Remember, I'm from the OPC, too. I accept that the EPC has arminian elements in it.

 

[Jim the Puritan]

It's not a problem area, yet, Hedrick. I appreciate that you don't think the motivation is one way or another. However, when the wording can be exploited, then advocates of other ideas shall exploit it for their own motivations when they reach the point of exploitation.

That exploitation could happen tomorrow.

It's not even hard to demonstrate. It's been happening for 100 years in the Presbyterian Church assemblies.

I think the fact is once a church tolerates sexual immorality and impurity, it will run rampant throughout the whole church in very short order. It will also attract people seeking a church which validates their sexual activities, and chase out those who still believe in Christian standards. The Episcopal Church is a good example, but the PCUSA will be there in about 5-10 years.

 

[hedrick]

Scriptural guidance is not Scriptural authority and adherence. It's the governing bodies' authority, with a li'l guide from Scripture.

I think you're using a hostile reading. Scripture doesn't tell us that X can or cannot be ordained. It does set standards which we have to apply to the candidates. Those standards aren't black and white, because we get no candidates who aren't sinners. So we are guided by the standards, but they don't dictate a specific decision. I believe it's reasonable to call this assessing candidates with the guidance of Scripture. If I had been wording it I probably would have used the language from the ordination vows and said under the authority of Scriptured and guided by the confessions. We're already committed to doing that anyway. But I honestly don't think there was any intend to minimize the authority of Scripture.

G-6.0106b tried to go beyond guidance by saying that Scripture made certain sins completely disqualifying. That could work if you were careful enough in the wording. But they failed to think carefully about how to do that in such a way that it would work. Since the only point of the paragraph was to force hostile bodies to do what they wanted, they had to assume that G-6.0106b would be applied in a hostile manner. They left too many loopholes. They would have had to say "G-6.0108 not withstanding, no person who is currently engaged in homosexual sex may be ordained." And even that might not have been good enough.

But if we back off of making lists of specific sins, and want wording that simply says to follow Scripture, I think what we just did is as good as any. Is there really a difference between saying that we have to assess candidates guided by Scripture and saying that we have to adhere to Scripture in assessing candidates. Both allow for, and indeed require, use of judgement in interpreting and applying Scripture to the candidates.

I understand that you don't think the current PCUSA approach to Scripture is right. I'm at least as concerned that the OPC has abandoned the Gospel as you are concerned about the PCUSA. But tweaking wording in the Book of Order just isn't the issue, and saying that the change in G-6.0106b represents abandonment of Scripture is irresponsible rhetoric.

It's irresponsible because we've got a few individuals and sessions who are panicked. Rabble-rousing does not help them make an honest assessment of the situation, to see what they really should do. I have the suspicion that some people *want* to create panic in the streets, but I trust you aren't one of them. If people honestly can't deal with the PCUSA the way it is, I want them to go someplace where they can live as Christians with a good conscience. I just don't want them to take action because they think the PCUSA has suddenly changed our attitude towards Scripture, or has removed the only thing that stands between us and adultery. If you want to criticize the PCUSA, do it for the right reasons. If we depart from the Gospel, it isn't because we changed the wording of G-6.0106b, and keeping the old wording wouldn't have turned us into the OPC.

Frankly, I would think the OPC would have a vested interest in this. If you get a substantial number of congregations that are actually mostly in agreement with the PCUSA but got panicked into overreacting, in 20 years the OPC will find itself in a position you don't want to be in.

 

[Faith.Man]

I think the fact is once a church tolerates sexual immorality and impurity, it will run rampant throughout the whole church in very short order. It will also attract people seeking a church which validates their sexual activities, and chase out those who still believe in Christian standards. The Episcopal Church is a good example, but the PCUSA will be there in about 5-10 years.

You have to wonder if some of these people ever read the New Testament.

 

[needinganame]

I think you're using a hostile reading. Scripture doesn't tell us that X can or cannot be ordained. It does set standards which we have to apply to the candidates.

I'm not buying into that one. First, God sets forth a Levitical standard by which the priests are to become, and also live. He doesn't even permit the priest to leave the tent, that they would become tainted by just the temptation or witness of sin. Service to the Lord is to be Holy, it is plain and clear as day. Second, Paul writes to Timothy in 1 Timothy 3:1-13. Candidacy standards by which all whom are call to lead the Church by, the qualities of "the overseer".
-----------------------------
The former wording of G 6.0103b in general was just fine.
"Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament."
----------------------------
"guided by scripture" just destroys the authority of the written Word. "governing bodies" relieves a candidate from responsibility.
There is nowhere in the amendment that charges the candidate to higher living nor leading. It is nothing but lukewarm milk anymore...

 

[RisingSpirit]

1) The change isn't as big as it sounds.

The way they worded the new change regarding to ordination seems to be more towards everybody in every type of sin. I like the change and gives more flexibility to who can preach. Wouldn't hurt to have multiple Reverends in a church. No matter how far we dig in who is sinning more than the other, one will always discuss how the Bible deals with sin among the pastors.

 

[RisingSpirit]

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.

Sometimes a minster who likes women don't know where to draw the line in their desires and may not know they are committing acts that are forbidden in the Bible in a literal view. Unrepentants may not know there's something to repent other than being a sinner.

They probably love everyone, happily.

 

[Jim the Puritan]

The Presbyterian Coalition is urging sessions to use one of the new amendments, Amendment 10-C to reenact the fidelity and chastity requirements at the individual church level so that the church can ban sexually immoral PCUSA clergy from the church under the now-required Sexual Misconduct Policy, whether that person is engaged in adultery, homosexuality, fornication, or other sexual activity prohibited by Scripture.

So that will be one tool individual churches can use to reject the PCUSA position now approving sexually immoral lifestyles of ordained ministers, elders and deacons. I guess it will eventually mean that lists will need to be made of PCUSA clergy engaging in sexual misconduct by their manner of living.

"All governing bodies shall adopt and implement a sexual misconduct policy." Generally, sexual misconduct policies express a principle of "mutuality," to mean that where equals give consent, a sexual relationship is not barred. This is more a secular than a Christian understanding of a sexual relationship.

Your session now has opportunity to write a sexual misconduct policy that expresses the biblical teaching of fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness. The wording of G-6.0106b, as it is in the 2009-2011 Book of Order, may be the language you will want to use.

 

[hedrick]

It's an interesting suggestion, but a Session doesn't need to engage on subterfuge to indicate their position on sexual ethics.

 

[RisingSpirit]

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.

I think it's a bad thing. The flee-ers are somewhat or visibly demonstrating that it's ok to have drunkers, adulterers, thieves, astrologers, witches warlocks, cheaters, liars etc to be shepherds but not same sex that love each other to be shepherds. I believe the flee-ers are lying to themselves and making up laws that suits them. Not all gay'ers are interested in that much sex. Some are probably not interested in sex at all and yet appear that way cause they are together. It's cheaper to have two of the same sex to share the same rent or car and yet we eye them to be an abomination to God.

The biggest problem is that we're dividing up our sin and looking at which is more sin than the other. All the sin listed above may be one and the same.

I like the Eastern thoughts where they are one while the Westerns divide themselves and look at things individually.

Personally, I'd rather the gays not be the shepherds but I must not lie to myself and cheat on my God. I'm guilty in being a sinner.

 

[RisingSpirit]

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.

If the Presbyterian Churches run like the government, Americans can't flee cause the democrats won over the Republicans. Americans know not to flee cause most of the votes went to the president. We can't scatter and flee every four years cause the voters voted for something that is against the flee-ers.
I believe it's a group thing and don't agree in having that many different Presbyterian churches and they flee since they can't live together..

 

[RisingSpirit]

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.

I never quite understood the argument about the PCUSA being apostate due to denying the deity of Jesus Christ. I did look into the accusation that many church believe that PCUSA deny Jesus being God or something. All I saw during my deep searches was that other churches accuse the PCUSA of denying the identity of Jesus Christ and at the same time I haven't yet found that they have. I never really understood that issue. It like reading that other churches claims PCUSA allows gays, years ago, to be ordained and they just now change the book of order just months ago. I never understood how churches can predict the future of something not yet happened and claim that it has happened. That was the most confusing searches ever for me. I found churches to create lies and flood Internet when such events haven't yet happened.

 

[RisingSpirit]

---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 was curious about the hoopla on talks about Chrislam, meaning mixing Islam with Christianity, I looked up a list of churches that supports such view. I was curoius about one Presbyterian church in the list and visited their site. Click here for that site. I was surprised in the strong language on the bottom of that site. It states:
-------------------------------
WARNING

If you take the Bible literally you may be disappointed here. We hope not, but we think you should know that we don’t take all of scripture literally (any more than Jesus did), but we DO take it seriously.
-----------------------------------

I find it odd but I believe thats old news for most Presbyterians. I believe we're all heavily debating here due to taking the Bible literally. The quote above doesn't sound pleasant but I wonder if we're way of course.

Where does the ship really need to head to?

 

[RisingSpirit]

---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've been keeping an eye out for new talks about new ideas to proclaim the Bible. Many discussions on emergent or emerging church. New Calvinism, New church, 7 point Calvinism, Federal Visions and more ideas are popping up among the Presbyterians.
I believe the Presbyterians are working hard to figure out how to proclaim the Gospel in a rapidly changing social environment in our 21st century. Also many are fighting against new ideas and cause too many issues that throw us off the real Gospel.

 

[RisingSpirit]

I continue to say that all evidence shows the PCUSA as fairly stable in theology since 1925.

Using 1925 kind of throws me off. I have little booklet on Presbyterian history and I find many divisions of the church. I found north in two divided parts that merged together in the North and I found two south in two parts that merged together and I found north and south merged together and merging other reformed Presbyterian churches after modification the old confessional creeds to satisfy both parties. The popular PCA split off this and now hearing rumors among PCA on splitting again. And at the same time the Presbyterians in the England, France, Germany area are very different than in America.

What do you mean by "stable" since 1925?

 

[RisingSpirit]

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?

I still think about how the King of Israel's brothers gave him away to be prisoned. Sometimes I wonder if God allows evil to happen on it's own so the end result of His predestination would be fulfilled.
With all these thoughts, combined, I can't help to wonder if God allows such things to happen in the PCUSA so people would recognize their sinful sins and that we all doomed to go to hell regardless of how much we complain about the lifestyles of church leaders.

 

[RisingSpirit]

- I parted ways with the PCUSA in 1970 and have never regretted my decision.

If I give up the PCUSA and move to the PCA, I'll have to agree that women can't collect tithes and pass out bread and wine to the pewers and probably have to refuse to allow women to preach to men or even Sunday School. That scares me the most. Coming out of the corporate workforce world and discovering the women can run countries as presidents tells me that maybe we shouldn't take it literally that women must be kept quiet. I'm not sure on the "men can't get pregnant philosophy" and women can't preach.

I would be guilty to cop out and run cause the votes don't fall in my favor. I shouldn't be punish cause Oboma is president due to having the most votes.

Maybe we shouldn't have left the Catholic Church.