Presbyterian Church Leaders Declare Gay Marriage Is Christian

[St_Worm2]

I would think the book of order would reduce burdens. But it's also a big burden on the individual pastor cause it's up to the pastor if they want to perform the marriages. Now the individual is responsible. It's easier for the individual to say, sorry I can't perform such marriages due to the book of order but now the book of order puts the responsibly on the individual.

Yeah, for those individuals who choose not to kowtow to the sinful whims of this Denomination and their new "OPTIONAL" Gay Marriage policy, it's going to get ugly. Surely such a pastor (and his congregation), if he/they have a lick of sense, will see the writing on the wall and bail, sending yet another PC(USA) congregation packing and heading toward the greener pastures of the EOC (or the like).

Of course, leaving the PC(USA) is not always as easy as one might like to think. The Denomination often owns or partially owns many of the churches' properties and buildings, and PC(USA) pastors' retirement accounts may be completely lost if such a move is made (at least that's how it was when I decided to leave). So getting out can be a VERY tricky and costly affair for pastors and/or congregations. Ugly if you go/ugly if you stay ..

Sad, however, is the best description I can think of right now for ALL that has and will be happening as a result of this move. Saddest of all is that the people who this new policy is supposed to be helping will end up being the people who are most hurt by it ..

Yours and His,
David

 

[JM]

This decision is due to a lack of faith in the Bible. Thousands of years of biblical revelation is being overturned for political purposes and a lack of faith, there is no other way to sum up this nonsense. Hedrick is able to put forth his views with sincerity and style but it is faithlessness at the core of liberalism.

Yours in The Lord,

jm
PS: liberal Christianity is not Christianity at all

 

[St_Worm2]

As far as I can tell, the headline is misleading. I don't believe the GA made any policy statements on gay sex or gay marriage. As far as I know, what they said was that in states where gay marriage is legal, PCUSA pastors could perform them.

I'm sure you're aware that members of the PCUSA disagree on whether gay sex and gay marriage are permissible. Neither the GA nor the constitution takes a position on this. The Authoritative Interpretation acknowledges that our pastors and sessions may object on Scriptural grounds, and respects that objection.

The Directory for Worship as revised would recognize Christian marriage between two members of the same gender, but not mandate it. I don't believe the intent of that change is to take a church-wide position on whether it is appropriate.

I assume you're aware that the PCUSA removed a statement from the Book of Order a couple of years ago. That statement prohibited ordination of gays. (Actually it prohibited ordination of anyone other than celibate people or people married to the opposite gender, but no one ever attempted to enforce it against anyone other than gays, and I don't think there was ever a serious intent to do so.) Again, this was not accompanied by a statement that gay sex is OK.

I'm not sure how much this distinction will matter. This seems to be an issue on which many conservatives aren't willing to coexist.

IMHO, opening the doors to gay marriage or an openly gay pastorate is tantamount to saying that "Gay" is "OK", which I believe the Bible clearly teaches against. It is, at the very least, a giant leap forward in that direction.

Thank you for the clarity you've brought to what may well be sensationalized news stories. I will take a closer look at what the PC(USA) did before I comment further.

Yours and His,
David

 

[St_Worm2]

This decision is due to a lack of faith in the Bible. Thousands of years of biblical revelation is being overturned for political purposes and a lack of faith, there is no other way to sum up this nonsense. Hedrick is able to put forth his views with sincerity and style but it is faithlessness at the core of liberalism.

Yours in The Lord,

jm
PS: liberal Christianity is not Christianity at all

Sentiments heard and mirrored, JM. I intend on looking at the denomination's decisions a little more carefully because of what Hendrik posted, but I am not hopeful of what I'll find (I mean no disrespect to you in saying that Hendrik, I just have a lot of personal history with this denomination that often skews my opinion of it) ..

Yours and His,
David

 

[hedrick]

IMHO, opening the doors to gay marriage or an openly gay pastorate is tantamount to saying that "Gay" is "OK", which I believe the Bible clearly teaches against. It is, at the very least, a giant leap forward in that direction.

As you may be aware, the PCUSA is a mainline church. Your About Me says you're a Young Earth Creationist. That means that many of us would say you have a fundamentally incorrect understanding of what the authors of Scripture were doing. CF rules don't allow me to show how the difference plays out for this specific issue.

I keep seeing statements like this implying that someone the PCUSA is making some kind of big change. We haven't been a conservative church since the early 20th Cent, and probably earlier than that. Every generation or two some members react with horror about some issue or another. The previous one was ordination of women. I've never understood it. Our approach to Scripture hasn't changed for 100 years. I've looked at the Sunday School books used when I was in high school in the 1960's. Our theology and approach to Scripture is identical to what it was then. You can trace it back to scholars and theologians in the late 19th Cent, though more recent thinking (particularly the historical Jesus movement) has certainly influenced us as well. (Indeed even on this issue there's a fairly long history. The first decision to prohibit ordination of homosexuals was in 1978, because a substantial number of churches were doing so. However a detailed review -- http://www.ve.org.za/index.php/VE/article/view/51/441 -- says that the issue was around since the 1960s. A report on human sexuality in 1970 didn't label homosexuality as sin, though the GA did. The final policy against it was made in 1997, at a time when it was already clear that the majority would become accepting in the future. Writing it into the constitution delayed that, but guaranteed that when it was finally repealed it would result in a crisis.)

However we have members with a wide variety of beliefs. Generally they've coexisted. I think many of us would say that we failed during the women's ordination issue, making it essentially impossible for conservatives to remain. Many of our leaders are trying to do better this time. I doubt that it will ultimately succeed, because conservatives commonly feel that they can't in good conscience be in the same denomination as liberals, and there are some practical issues as well. But both sides are trying. Many here have seen the hysterical statements by The Layman. But I think this statement better represents the reaction of conservatives within the PCUSA: A Pastoral Letter from PFR and the Fellowship of Presbyterians | Presbyterians For Renewal - Missional Leadership for Presbyterian Congregations

 

[St_Worm2]

As you may be aware, the PCUSA is a mainline church.

Yes, I was baptized almost 58 years ago in a PC(USA) church (we called it the United Presbyterian Church back then, I believe) and I "grew up" as a member of that church. I am pretty familiar with it. I didn't become a Christian until I was 30 years old however. You continue:

Your About Me says you're a Young Earth Creationist. That means that many of us would say you have a fundamentally incorrect understanding of what the authors of Scripture were doing.

Yes, it's true that I've decided the historical understanding of Genesis is the correct one. I am not alone however as many modern theologians and scientists who take a serious look are often swayed in the same direction. Dr. R. C. Sproul is one such theologian who remained agnostic on this subject (IOW, he would not comment about it until he'd had a chance to thoroughly study it) though he was a book intro/forward author for Hugh Ross (so all of us who had an interest in knowing what he thought and why, believed he was anything but YEC, of course). But he ended up being a surprise to many on both sides of the issue when he finally studied the subject in depth and admitted that the classic/historic understanding, IOW YEC, was indeed the truth. Since this matter cannot be 'proven' however, it has always seemed easy enough (for me anyway) to live in harmony with those, such as yourself, who believe otherwise .. You continue:

CF rules don't allow me to show how the difference plays out for this specific issue.

If you wish to enlighten me and/or you feel it is information that would be beneficial for me to know, please don't hesitate to PM me. I do have an open mind (even if it doesn't show all the time .. ). You continue:

I keep seeing statements like this implying that someone the PCUSA is making some kind of big change. We haven't been a conservative church since the early 20th Cent, and probably earlier than that.

True for the denomination, but not true (fortunately) for all of the individual churches around the country, one of which I was blessed to be a part of in the 80's and 90's. The church I refer to had two significant splits during the last third of the 20th Century, the first resulted in a PCA congregation being formed out the members who left, and the second an EPC. The church that remained I was recently amazed and happy to find out is now EOC.

Thanks for the link and for the other data you've provided (in this post and in the other one). Believe it or not, I still hold the denomination of my youth in high regard and am hopeful for its future (and I truly hope what I find right now is not going to be as bad as the media has made it out to be).

Yours and His,
David

 

[tulipbee]

Marriage between two people could be marriage between a man or female and a Hermaphrodite.

 

[dysert]

I'll try this again...

1. What are "regional presbyteries"?

2. I (currently) attend a PC(USA) church in a state that does not yet allow same-sex marriages. Given the votes in the General Assembly, how does my particular church define marriage today?

Thanks.

 

[hedrick]

I'll try this again...

1. What are "regional presbyteries"?

I suspect this is a newspaper's attempt to be helpful to people who don't know the Presbyterian system. Changes to the constitution have to be ratified by the presbyteries. There's only one kind.

2. I (currently) attend a PC(USA) church in a state that does not yet allow same-sex marriages. Given the votes in the General Assembly, how does my particular church define marriage today?

Thanks.

What is in effect today is the authoritative interpretation. It allows gay marriage in states where it is allowed in civil law. Thus there is no change for your state. I'm not sure whether this answers your question. If you are asking about the definition of marriage, independently of whether you can conduct it, the Directory for Worship currently defines marriage as a civil contract that is also a Christian covenant. So there's no separate definition of marriage, independent of the state's. That's why it is plausible to interpret the Directory as authorizing gay marriage now.

(Remember that an AI can't change the constitution. The argument would be that the Directory currently ties marriage to the state's definition. It was written in terms of a man and a woman because at the time it was written all states defined marriage that way. Now that some states allow gay marriage, if we accept the state's definition of marriage then we logically would allow gay marriage.)

If a gay couple married in another state moves to your state, I think a straightforward reading of the text would be that we would regard them as married. The civil contract that according to the Directory defines marriage would still be in effect, even if your state doesn't recognize it as marriage.

I think it's fairly weird to define marriage primarily as a civil contract. The wording in the proposed amendment seems to change that, but it still ties eligibility for marriage to civil law.

But if you're interested in the definition, independently of the practical question of when it can be done, that's more complex after the amendment. The text ties the availability of a marriage service to civil eligibility: "If they meet the requirements of the civil jurisdiction in which they intend to marry, a couple may request that a service of Christian marriage be conducted.." But there is now a separate definition of marriage: "Marriage is a gift God has given to all humankind for the well-being of the entire human family. Marriage involves a unique commitment between two people to love and support each other for the rest of their lives. The sacrificial love that unites the couple sustains them as faithful and responsible members of the church and the wider community. In civil law, marriage is a contract ..."

Thus you can argue that we define marriage independently of gender, but tie authorization to perform it to eligibility under state law. This wouldn't typically matter. But if a gay couple married in another state moved to your state, the implication is that we would regard them as married, whatever your state law might say. While I argue above that that's true even now, I think it's clearer after the amendment.

Of course it's pretty clear that the Federal courts are in the process of extending gay marriage to all states, so I believe it's just a matter of time.

Both the AI and the proposed amendment are clear in allowing the pastor to refuse requests to marry, and in allowing the Session to refuse the use of church property.

Note that it is already possible in your state for a Presbyterian pastor to conduct worship services not mandated in the constitution, such as celebrations of a gay union, whether it is a civil marriage or not. This has been possible throughout the history of the controversy over homosexuality. Thus it was already possible to have a service to bless a gay marriage that has been performed as a separate civil marriage. It just wasn't allowed to perform an actual gay marriage.

 

[tulipbee]

Of course, leaving the PC(USA) is not always as easy as one might like to think.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Funny how the Westminster confession forbids elders and pastor to leave a church and the book of order forbids them to go against the church and then those that leaves and turn around claiming how faith full they are on the Westminster confessions and create new church based on that.

Didn't the Westminster say man and women? I think it did.

 

[HereIStand]

The PCUSA vote isn't a big surprise. Still though, it is a big step for the denomination, and one more step for society in the normalization of homosexuality.

There may be those within the PCUSA who favor allowing room for evangelicals within the denomination (like myself) the room to dissent from whatever transpires in PCUSA as a result of this vote. The problem is that within society at large to oppose gay marriage is to oppose marriage equality. And who would oppose equality? Only those guilty of bigotry.

Within evangelicalism, my sense is that while denominations will remain officially opposed to non-celibacy for gays, an emerging consensus will be that there are differing points of view among Christians. Some favor celibacy while others are open to the possibility of non-celibacy. Once the possibility of non-celibacy for gays is admitted as a point of view within evangelical churches, it won't be long before the possibility becomes reality.

 

[St_Worm2]

......the Westminster confession forbids elders and pastor to leave a church..............

Hi Tulipbee, would you mind pointing out which part of the Confession, "forbids elders and pastor to leave a church".

Thanks for your help!

Yours and His,
David

 

[hedrick]

Within evangelicalism, my sense is that while denominations will remain officially opposed to non-celibacy for gays, an emerging consensus will be that there are differing points of view among Christians. Some favor celibacy while others are open to the possibility of non-celibacy. Once the possibility of non-celibacy for gays is admitted as a point of view within evangelical churches, it won't be long before the possibility becomes reality.

I'm concerned about this. My concern is that few churches are having a real theological discussion. Even the liberal ones. From a mainline perspective we can have a principled acceptance of gays, but I'm not sure how much of the current acceptance is really based on that. I've very much afraid that some people just want peace.

In 1989 we had a task force look at sexual ethics. They produced an extremely interesting whitepaper. Whether you agree or not, at least it's based on a lot of discussion with members about their experiences, and theologians about theological and Biblical issues. But it was rejected by the GA.

The current acceptance of gays is based on a different approach, produced by a task force on Peace, Unity and Purity. However it was not asked to, and did not, produce a theological or exegetical position. It reviewed the theology, but didn't present it in detail, and didn't advocate a position. It noted that there were intractable disagreements, and recommended some steps that many have called polity-based.

This means that the changes in policies on gays recognized that many within the Church now believe there is good reason to accept same-gender sex, and reference is made to various analyses that lead to that. But the Church as a whole has never adopted an actual justification.

This may be a pragmatic approach to avoiding alienating people, but many of us worry that it violates the basic concept of our church as a confessing body.

I see the more liberal part of evangelicalism moving in the same direction, but with even less reflection on the justification. We at least did publish a detailed justification, even if it was never adopted by the Church as a whole. But unless evangelicals adopt a mainline perspective on Christianity, it seems to me that they may be moving in the direction of saying "sure Scripture prohibits it. But so what? I don't want to fight anymore." I don't think that's healthy. I'd be happy to see evangelicals join us. But only if they do so after carefully understanding what it means.

 

[JM]

PC(USA) seems to be an old liberal white mainline denomination slowly dying.

The Coming Collapse of the PC(USA)

"In terms of giving insight into the current battles raging within the PC (USA) and the exodus of evangelical churches, the report is quite helpful. Consider the following statement: “only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved.” Among pastors, 45% disagreed or strongly disagreed. 41% agreed or strongly agreed. Among our clergy, there is a clearly demonstrable variance about a fundamental tenet of Christian belief that is central to the mission of the church—the proclamation of the Gospel."

Liberalism is nothing more than liberal doctrine wrapped in Christian tradition.

Yours in The Lord,

jm

 

[JM]

More than half of PCUSA Presbyterians reject Jesus as sole savior

More than half of PCUSA Presbyterians reject Jesus as sole savior

 

[GQ Chris]

More than half of PCUSA Presbyterians reject Jesus as sole savior

More than half of PCUSA Presbyterians reject Jesus as sole savior

Wow.

 

[tulipbee]

PC(USA) seems to be an old liberal white mainline denomination slowly dying.

The Coming Collapse of the PC(USA)

"In terms of giving insight into the current battles raging within the PC (USA) and the exodus of evangelical churches, the report is quite helpful. Consider the following statement: “only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved.” Among pastors, 45% disagreed or strongly disagreed. 41% agreed or strongly agreed. Among our clergy, there is a clearly demonstrable variance about a fundamental tenet of Christian belief that is central to the mission of the church—the proclamation of the Gospel."

Liberalism is nothing more than liberal doctrine wrapped in Christian tradition.

Yours in The Lord,

jm

If God draws the elect and gives the elect to Jesus then there might be a possibility that the Elect died not knowing the story or hear another talk about him. He ends up in heaven anyway. Billy Graham believed in inclusivism as well.

Perhaps the saved doesn't need to show the world he is elected.

 

[tulipbee]

Hi Tulipbee, would you mind pointing out which part of the Confession, "forbids elders and pastor to leave a church".

Thanks for your help!

Yours and His,
David

I may have get it mixed up with christains should go to a local church.

 

[HereIStand]

More than half of PCUSA Presbyterians reject Jesus as sole savior

More than half of PCUSA Presbyterians reject Jesus as sole savior

The problem of not seeing Christ as sole savior is not unique to the PCUSA. According to this article, "Among Evangelical Christians, only 45 percent clearly affirm that a personal belief in, or relationship with, Christ is essential for eternal life."

 

[St_Worm2]

I may have get it mixed up with christains should go to a local church.

Ahhhh, that one's in the Bible too, Hebrews 10:24-25. But I think you're right, neither the Bible nor the Westminster Confession has much to say about jumping from one denomination to another.