Questions About PCA

Evenstar253 said:

. . .I'm praying that liberals and conservatives can take a break from demonizing each other and at least come together on issues such as eliminating bullying in the schools. . . .

Click to expand...

I was bullied in school and it made me much stronger. Without bulling, how can we become strong? Without the good, how can we become bad? Bullying is way too narrowed down to a small group such as sexual exploration and experimentations. For your info, I've never done such sexual experiment. The Lord didn't allow that to happen to me. Haven't we all tried to smoke a cigarette at least once to get the feel of all the Hollywood hoopla? Come on, give me a break. Bulling on a very small group that has been amplified and blown out of proportion via the media and Internet. I think , Jimmy Kimmel has a fantastic idea and made an "National UnFriend Day" -NUD- — a new holiday he hopes will inspire Facebook users to unfriend the social networking contacts that aren’t real friends. That's tomorrow! Too many facebook friends don't care about you. It gotten to the point where the whole world know that one man on florida road in house number 555 had stepped on a coarchroach for fun. Too much information can also harm you.

ThePresbyteers said:

Without bulling, how can we become strong?

Click to expand...

...seriously?



Some people may become stronger from bullying. Others are driven to the brink of self-hatred and despair and attempt (and sometimes complete) suicide. I'm much more concerned about suicide prevention than building character via bullying.

eta: I'm not going to discuss this topic further, both because it's pushing the thread further and further off topic (partially my fault), and I also see this discussion going absolutely nowhere.

kenrapoza said:

Agreed, but you know the sterotype.

Click to expand...

One of the problems with past attitudes is that normal gays tended to hide that fact, so you only saw the extreme ones. I think that's starting to change.

That's probably true. However, I was referring to the stereotype of conservatives being angry towards gays, or "gay-bashers", whatever term you want to use. Sorry for the confusion. FWIW, I think that any Christian who treats a gay person with disrespect and acts self-righteous is repudiating their profession of Christianity because they are not recognizing themselves as just as much of a sinner and therefore misunderstanding the gospel.

hedrick said:

. . .The PCUSA is a more liberal church. It is, as you note, more open to change. It has accepted female officers, and will eventually accept homosexual officers, although it doesn't currently. Underlying this is a more relaxed approach to applying Scripture. . . .

Click to expand...

I'm taking another look at the PCUSA and am troubled by your "although it doesn't currently". I took a look at some upcoming votings in the moderater's meetings and read up on the changes that they want to make in the PCUSA's "Book of Order". It's disturbing to read that they want to tear a page out of that book and replace it with a new page.

here is a brief change for a quick overlook (striking = removing):

----------------------------

AMENDMENT LANGUAGE IS AS FOLLOWS:

Shall G-6.0106b be amended by striking the current text and inserting new text in its place as follows:

STRIKING:

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.

AND INSERTING:

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.

--------------------------

Ok, the change in PC-USA ordination rules does two things:

a.) Those ordained no longer have to "lead a life of obedience to Scripture", and

b.) Local presbyteries determine whether candidates for ordination are morally suitable.


This second clause (b) permits liberal congregations to ordain immoral individuals without the PC-USA as a denomination having to concur.

The whole idea being ordination of homosexuals and other immoral characters in violation of New Testament strictures.

Rome refuses to ordain females. They ostensibly refuse to ordain homosexuals, but unofficially have accepted huge numbers of homosexuals as priests.

The UMC has ordained a lesbian minister.

The Episcopal Church in America regularly ordains homosexuals.

I'm questioning if these (and the PC-USA) are faithful churches.


Originally I was seeking what the PCUSA mean by "those that have the gift"

--------------------

Ch X, WCF:

10:4 Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the

Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly

come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men, not professing

the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so

diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of

that religion they do profess. And, to assert and maintain that they may, is

very pernicious, and to be detested.

----------------------

I see above:

". . .not elected, although they may be called . . ."


" . . . may have some common operations of the Spirit. . ."


My guess is that the Book of Order are changing to these statements. I believe some moderators believe that the gays can be called or have certain operations of the spirit and claims that the Homosexuals should use their calling or gifts in the office.

Maybe this isn't the same as being called to office or called to serve or use operations or gift in the offices.


There's the General Calling which anyone can receive ...including the reprobate.

And the Effectual Calling that utilizes the same message, but is addressed to the Elect.

The linchpin of the Gospel being regeneration ! Same Gospel. Only difference is in the hearer.

I wouldn't want go by much the leaders of the PC-USA say. Scripture pronounces those who condone homosexuality as being equally evil as those who practice homosexually (Romans 1:32)


Yeah, that's the watchword ...'being "welcoming gays" '.

Means we're being 'accepting'. Taking people as they are.

Jesus welcomed tax collectors and prostitutes, right ?

Actually, no. He accepted repentant sinners !

Mary Magdalene didn't spend all day listening to Jesus sermonizing... then all night doing tricks for Johns.

The "sinners" (Matthew 9:10-11, et. al.) whom Jesus hung-out with were repentant sinners. They felt guilt for their sins. NOT out-of-the-closet folks indulging their fav abomination !

I'm NOT saying that homosexuals can't become Christian.

"I have not come to call
the righteous, but sinners"
(Matthew 9:13 NIV)

NON-SINNERS NEED NOT APPLY

The first requirement for becoming a Christian is being a sinner !
However, the second requirement is repentance.

My question is , How can Homosexuals continue to practice their lifestyles and continue to be part of the church offices? That I don't understand.

If you are convinced that homosexuals should not be ordained, you probably don't belong in the PCUSA. The proposed changes don't remove the requirement to live a life in accordance to Scripture. From a practical point of view they won't result in congregations looking less carefully at candidates. The only intended change is to open the way for gay officers. I understand that you don't think that this can possibly be in accordance with scripture, but many PCUSA sessions do. While the current language sounds like it reflects a stronger moral standard, I don't think that's really the case. As far as I know (and I think I would) it has never been applied to adulterers, usurers, or any other class of people violating the Reformed standards, and repeal would not affect how other types of sin are treated. (in fact I do consider other offenses relevant. I'm not trying to say that they aren't, just that the proposed changed is intended only for one purpose, just as the language it is replacing was intended only for one purpose.)

As to the issue itself, the rules of this forum forbid anyone from attempting to answer you, so I'm not going to. But you should be aware that you've raised a question where responses aren't permitted.

hedrick said:

If you are convinced that homosexuals should not be ordained, you probably don't belong in the PCUSA. The proposed changes don't remove the requirement to live a life in accordance to Scripture. From a practical point of view they won't result in congregations looking less carefully at candidates. The only intended change is to open the way for gay officers. I understand that you don't think that this can possibly be in accordance with scripture, but many PCUSA sessions do. While the current language sounds like it reflects a stronger moral standard, I don't think that's really the case. As far as I know (and I think I would) it has never been applied to adulterers, usurers, or any other class of people violating the Reformed standards, and repeal would not affect how other types of sin are treated. (in fact I do consider other offenses relevant. I'm not trying to say that they aren't, just that the proposed changed is intended only for one purpose, just as the language it is replacing was intended only for one purpose.)

As to the issue itself, the rules of this forum forbid anyone from attempting to answer you, so I'm not going to. But you should be aware that you've raised a question where responses aren't permitted.

Click to expand...

"Attempting to answer" is an interesting term. Your questions and thoughts were very worth reading and thank you for replying. I'm a newbie here. I read the rules but not sure I'm violating it. At least, I'm Biblically discussing it. Is it that I'm not violating it unless someone temps to answer them? I hope to continue but I'm not sure where that fine line is discussing the Bible quotes, themselves and the creeds themselves. The Jehovah Witnesses did remove whole Bible quotes in their New World Translation Bibles. I'm not sure if we can remove actual King James Bible quotes, here or at least the Presbyterian creeds in this forum. I'm confused. I believe there is another section in this forum where I can continue. Where is that section?
I guess I stick with the physical creed, itself and let it answer your question, "If you are convinced that homosexuals should not be ordained" based on the PCUSA book of Order, hoping not to violate the rules. Without answering your question, I'll leave the creeds, themselves, to answer it.
in creed: G-6.0106b, it states that: 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.
Being in the "Confessional, Covenantal, Creedal - Presbyterian" forum, I may be allowed to stick with the creed topics. May I? The creed above is self explanatory. I would like to discuss the reason of the new votes on the upcoming moderators meeting in the spring of 2011.
The old creed seems to answer to the "adulterers" as well. They, too, are under the present Presbyterian creeds.

The forum policy I'm concerned with is one that prohibits advocating homosexuality. I assume that would also prevent presenting arguments used by Christians who consider it acceptable. That's why I said that I don't believe I can try to answer all of the comments made in your posting. There's no problem discussing the meaning of the standards or the rest of it. The only problem is answering your question "How can Homosexuals continue to practice their lifestyles and continue to be part of the church offices?" I don't think I respond in this forum. As I read it, the rules permit criticizing homosexuality but not defending it. (However they also do not permit belittling homosexuals as persons.)

The term "confessions" or "creeds" in the PCUSA refer to the confessions in the Book of Confessions. Your quotation is from the Book of Order. The reason that difference matters is that the Book of Order is primarily a set of procedures. It's not intended to be a source of theology. For that it refers to Scripture and to the confessions. That's why G-6.0106b refers (in a part not quoted) to things that the confessions call sin, and of course to Scripture. The Westminster Catechism (in a long list that also prohibits "impudent or light behavior") and the Heidelberg Catechism (although only due to a mistranslation) do prohibit homosexuality.

The question of qualifications of officers is an interesting one. I've been discussing it recently with our pastor. He maintains that you can't prohibit all sins, or we'd have no officers, and that it is contrary to Christ's intention to care more about public sins than private ones. On the other hand, he doesn't advocate use of a lottery. He does look for a person's life to reflect Christianity. He just doesn't have a specific set of sins that disqualify. I'm not so sure. I certainly wouldn't want to pick anyone who is abusive (on any of several different levels). and I doubt that he would either. Which things you look for reflect your priorities on what the Gospel means. Some Christians tend to have sexual purity very high on their list. Many PCUSA churches, while not condoning adultery and other sexual sins, put sexual purity rather lower on their list than some other things. I think that reflects Jesus' own priorities. But the question remains: would you choose someone as an elder that is currently living with someone else's wife. I wouldn't be eager to do that. If you want my opinion on homosexuality, you should contact me privately or in a forum with different rules.

I agree with the point that what we're really concerned about is unrepentant sin. In fact the test cases have all involved people who openly say that they are homosexual, and that they do not consider it a sin. On the other end, the provision is certainly not intended to cover someone who feels tempted but doesn't give in, and I believe probably not even to someone who agrees that it's sinful but from time to time gives in. I'm not aware of any cases in the church courts involving someone who says that they agree that it's sinful, but they are currently in such a relationship and very much doubt that they will ever be able to abandon it. I think you could argue that this isn't really unrepentant. Again, this kind of difficult personal situation is not what G-6.0106b is aimed at. I rather suspect that all of us have some sin that we've not managed to give up. While the authors of G-6.0106b may consider sexual sins of that kind more important than other kinds of sin, I don't. But that's not what the current battle is about. It's about whether homosexuality is acceptable or not, and the people who get caught up in the test cases are just pawns in that disagreement (although generally pawns who have chosen that role).

At this instant it is in fact legal to ordain homosexuals in the PCUSA. The last GA gave an authoritative interpretation to that effect, based on G-6.0108, which provides for individuals to disagree with the church on matters of Scriptural interpretation, as long as the ordaining body does not consider the matter to be an essential tenet of the Reformed faith. Since the issue here is precisely one of Scriptural interpretation, G-6.0108 does appear to apply, and whether homosexuality is really an essential tenet of the Reformed faith seems something that is at least open for discussion. It is quite likely that the permanent judicial commission will reverse that authoritative interpretation, based on the slightly weird argument that G-6.0108 provides freedom of interpretation for beliefs, but that this doesn't extend to acting on the belief. But in the PCUSA the GA and the PJC are at the same level, so the next GA could (and probably will) reverse it again. It's the most recent ruling that is controlling.

The reason I advise anyone who feels strongly against ordination of homosexuals to stay away from the PCUSA is that everyone (even conservatives, if you get them in private) believes that it's only a matter of time. (1) conservatives are leaving, which will tend to move the balance to the liberal end (2) our young adults appear to be significantly more accepting of homosexuals (although not necessarily more liberal in other ways). I teach Sunday School to 7th and 8th grade. My students can't understand why homosexuality is even an issue (i.e. they can't wrap their brains around the arguments against it -- and there's a limit to how much of an attempt to explain it would be permitted in our congregation). I doubt my students are atypical.

hedrick said:

. . . The Westminster Catechism (in a long list that also prohibits "impudent or light behavior") and the Heidelberg Catechism (although only due to a mistranslation) do prohibit homosexuality. . . .

Click to expand...

If the new Book of Order change passes in the upcoming spring, is there a chance that the PCUSA would have to eliminate the Westminster creeds from their practice? The PCUSA have many Catechisms (probably 5-8)

The PCA use the Westminster Catechism as their main Catechism.

Again I don't mind fixing something at is broken. I'm having trouble finding the crack.

Does the Westminster's Catechism prohibit ordaining females? I know PCA don't have female pastors while the PCUSA does.