Some info on the conservative Presbyterians

This site is a good summary of various denominations:
Presbyterian and Reformed Churches

You can also learn much about the OPC here:
Q and A

I grew up Presbyterian and I think you'll find that most are fairly moderate in their rituals and practices compared to other religions.

Mod Hat

Thread has been cleaned. Please remember that you may not debate or teach against the beliefs of any congregational forum where you are not a member.

mcpp321 said:

I've begun going to an Orthodox Presbyterian church and really like it. Thanks!

Click to expand...

Wonderful news!

AMR said:

This site is a good summary of various denominations:
Presbyterian and Reformed Churches

You can also learn much about the OPC here:
Q and A

Click to expand...

Under PCUSA's summary, it states:
"The largest Reformed Denomination in the U.S., has a strongly liberal leadership and is has approved of homosexual marriage and ordination".

I didn't know that PCUSA had approved homosexual marriage, YET. Has that "yet" happened yet?

RisingSpirit said:

Under PCUSA's summary, it states:
"The largest Reformed Denomination in the U.S., has a strongly liberal leadership and is has approved of homosexual marriage and ordination".

I didn't know that PCUSA had approved homosexual marriage, YET. Has that "yet" happened yet?

Click to expand...

The PCUSA has not approved conducting homosexual marriage in a PCUSA service, although we do allow blessing a gay union in a PCUSA service, as long as it isn't called a marriage. This puts us in an odd position. Since we allow gay officers, we would seem to be requiring them to have extra-marital intercourse. However, we don't actually prohibit them from getting married. We just prohibit them from getting married by the PCUSA. There was a GA PJC case about this. The PJC found that a gay PCUSA pastor may be married. I suppose you could say then that we do approve of homosexual marriage. We just won't conduct it ourselves.

Sickening.

hedrick said:

.... Since we allow gay officers, we would seem to be requiring them to have extra-marital intercourse. ....

Click to expand...

It's impossible for gays to extra-marital intercourse, unless I'm reading this wrong. I see it as perversion.

tulipbee said:

It's impossible for gays to extra-marital intercourse, unless I'm reading this wrong. I see it as perversion.

Click to expand...

I would think the conservative position would be that all gay sex is extra-marital.

I realize that you think gay sex is perversion. I'm not interested in arguing that point. But presumably churches that ordain gay officers don't see it that way. I'm not surprised or particularly upset that the PCA doesn't support gay marriage. But I do think it's weird for the PCUSA to have gay officers but not want to see them married.

Does that make sense, or are you so upset by gay sex that you can't put yourself in the position of a church that accepts it? Can you really not understand why I'd think we should not just support but mandate gay marriage? I would think the long-term effect of not wanting to see gay officers married would be to undermine heterosexual marriage as well. If we don't care about the quality of gay relationships, how likely is it that we'll be careful about heterosexual ones?

hedrick said:

I would think the conservative position would be that all gay sex is extra-marital.

I realize that you think gay sex is perversion. I'm not interested in arguing that point. But presumably churches that ordain gay officers don't see it that way. I'm not surprised or particularly upset that the PCA doesn't support gay marriage. But I do think it's weird for the PCUSA to have gay officers but not want to see them married.

Does that make sense, or are you so upset by gay sex that you can't put yourself in the position of a church that accepts it? Can you really not understand why I'd think we should not just support but mandate gay marriage? I would think the long-term effect of not wanting to see gay officers married would be to undermine heterosexual marriage as well. If we don't care about the quality of gay relationships, how likely is it that we'll be careful about heterosexual ones?

Click to expand...

I'm still hopping back and fourth between PCUSA and PCA. I'm tired of not being able to choose between the two. I really wanted to stick with my new local ECO and voted to change denominations but I didn't realize that 4/5ths of the old PCUSA was going to up and move out leaving the old PCUSA as they are and start from scratch. My main goal was to find a stable church. I ended up back to church hopping again not wanting to start with a church with no settlement where the new building will be. I feel out of place and not supportive to the fresh ECO cause I don't tithe to help them to build a half a billion dollar building. My two cents is a joke. If I can settle with new friends, I can start giving my time instead.
Hedrick, I still have our PM's from years ago when you told me about the possibility of the homosexuals being inside cults and their rituals during Jesus's time. You also told me you disagree parts of the Westminster confessions. I may want to go with a little more flexibility on the old possible outdated Westminster confessions since our culture and changed so much.
I like the PCA idea on all men elders but I'm afraid that idea is outdated while I read the Roman Catholics are not ready for female priest like they might change their minds later. The RCC already changing "unmarried priests" to "married priests" to solve the "getting too close to little boys" problems. We already hear the pope switching more focus on love and less focus on gays, abortions and other attention sucking behaviours.
While our culture is changing so fast I want to trust PCUSA and move on so I can make friends to solve my stewardship problems. My biggest problem is the old fashion hymn singing meaning they can't afford projectors. I don't like heavy books, fumblng pages, with reading glasses falling off my nose. Thats outdated for sure and think it's really stupid to call it the traditional way of singing. By the time I settle down with the hymn books, the songs are half over and I'm totally lost on the placements of the songs. I feel non-participating and a rebel when I leave to books in the pews. It's like driving with a 3 feet by 3 feet paper map instead of using the electronic GPS.
I might agree with hedrick's past posts, I would think I'm forced to chose between the "lesser of two evils" like theres no solution and stick with PCUSA.
I think in the old culture marriage meant "orders" to have and raise children. In our new culture we're finding easier ways for man & man or woman & woman to adopt/have children and raise them. I believe any single person can raise kids without the opposite partner involved. As popular as the new pope is, he may be right that there are too much focus on gay lifestyles and not able to move past this problematic unsolvable event.
As far as PCUSA marrying gays is like playing "house" where kids use imaginations. Maybe I'll feel more comfortable in separation of religion and state. The state created "marriage" based on the Bible or at least to promote kid raising with discounts on taxes and multiple benefits. Now with many nonspiritual unbelievers I believe the states/feds will need to redefine "marriage".
I believe we now have two totally different meanings of "marriage" One for the states and one for the church. I never watched the new show, "Mistress-es" but I can tell from the previews that the show has the same troublesome behaviours as the "Modern Family". Both have rights to do what they do. I think the Biblical vows are outdated today and the PCAs are still stuck with their old Westminster Confessions and the ECO is a rerun of another Presbyterian denomination.
I don't think its fair for the PCUSA to claim, 'House divided shall not stand' while all of the Presbyterians divided themselves from multiple "old" churches in the past. I don't believe apostolic accession is possible after 2000 year while ALL believers are priests and only 2 or 3 elder votes on one leader of a congregation that start from raw scratch.
Hedrick, we all need to thank you for your honesty while most are dishonest with their posts.

tulipbee said:

So, hedrick, should I join the PCUSA and ignore the lesser of two evils?

Click to expand...

That's not a decision I can make for you. I don't think you should do something just because you think the culture is going that way. If you really think Scripture calls for male leaders, you should stick with a church that does that. It's probably not going to be the ECO. As far as I can tell the ECO is for PCUSA churches that just can stand the thought of having gay officers. I don't believe their theology or practice is different otherwise. If you think traditional theology such as Westminster is what God actually wants you should look for a PCA or other conservative congregation.

I note, however, that PCUSA congregations are not typically ideological liberals. There are some who are. But I think most congregations hold with fairly traditional theology. They just aren't as "hard core" about it as the PCA, and aren't as concerned about differences in interpretation. They also tend to see the OT and the NT letters (though not most of Jesus' teachings) as addressed to the circumstances of the times, and hence not always directly applicable to us. If that's where you are fine. I just can't tell from this post whether you actually feel that way or are just tired of pressure from people around you pushing in that direction. I wouldn't want to see anyone get pressured into accepting something he really thinks is wrong. I just can't tell from your posting whether that's the case or not.

I'm not sure what "possibility of the homosexuals being inside cults and their rituals during Jesus's time" means. As far as I can see the early church had Jewish attitudes towards sex between the same gender. Boswell tried to make a case for some kind of blessing ceremony for gay unions in the early church, but I don't believe many think his evidence supports his thesis.

The only thing I can think of that might support something in Jesus' time would be the "secret Gospel of Mark." But there are two issues: (1) the scholarly community doesn't seem to have accepted the secret gospel as genuine; (2) even if it is, the implication isn't clear.

As far as I know, PowerPoints are a cultural, not a theological issue. They'll differ from congregation to congregation. There are PCUSA churches with liberal theology that have modern services, and conservative PCA churches with traditional services. Many congregations have two services with different styles.

tulipbee said:

So, hedrick, should I join the PCUSA and ignore the lesser of two evils?

Click to expand...

I am offended by the implication that the PCA is one of the lesser of two evils. I would suggest that you carefully consider your words before posting them in a public forum, especially in this Presbyterian forum. Your post also hints at debating matters, such as ordination of female elders, that is not permitted in this safe-haven forum.

If you are interested in PCA polity and its confessional standards, I strongly recommend you speak to an active PCA elder or someone who is actually a PCA covenanted member in good standing. If you have a specific question about doctrine and want an orthodox answer without discussion from the general public, you may want to post something in the AAC forum directed towards myself and I will be happy to respond.

AMR said:

... I would suggest that you carefully consider your words before posting them in a public forum, especially in this Presbyterian forum. Your post also hints at debating matters, such as ordination of female elders, that is not permitted in this safe-haven forum.

Click to expand...

You're right. I was wrong in using those wordings. I had it stuck in my mind for something totally unrelated and I wrongly use it carelessly.

I removed those wordings. I'm not wanting to enter a debate on women elders. Be there done that. Enough on that. I don't think we're going to debate women issues or at least i didn't mean to sound that way. Do I need remove that , AMR? Hedrick asked a broad question and I gave a broad answer. As an Presbyterian and members of both as well as ECO, I'm listening to both, the PCUSA and the PCA, like I have for years. Both fits under Confessional, Covenantal, Creedal - Presbyterian. If both can't discuss women elders, Then I'll gladly delete my post all together. I wasn't aware of breaking the rules on women elders. Let me know on what to do?

hedrick said:

.... If you think traditional theology such as Westminster is what God actually wants you should look for a PCA or other conservative congregation....

Click to expand...

Might just be easier to go back to square one, the Westminster confessions at my age.

Theres something creative about the future goals of the PCUSA. I looking for creativity but at least my local PCUSA are doing more funerals than baptisms. I might be able to change that myself in my local area through weekly classes. I believe PCUSA are willing to take risks which might end up being more later acceptable in our new fast-changing world.

tulipbee said:

Might just be easier to go back to square one, the Westminster confessions at my age.

Theres something creative about the future goals of the PCUSA. I looking for creativity but at least my local PCUSA are doing more funerals than baptisms. I might be able to change that myself in my local area through weekly classes. I believe PCUSA are willing to take risks which might end up being more later acceptable in our new fast-changing world.

Click to expand...

It depends upon the congregation, but some are. Most of the presbyteries know that it's necessary, though some are being more intentional than others. But it's a matter of what risks for what purpose, obviously.

I'm in a congregation that's doing plenty of baptisms, though plenty of funerals as well.

mcpp321 said:

However where I currently live there only seems to be available a OPC, (Nothing personal PCA im sure you're all great folks too! )

Click to expand...

You're blessed. The OPC is the way to go. PCUSA is Presbyterian in name only.

I am largely indifferent to politics, whether of conservative or liberal bent (though, if I were in charge, I'd be to the right of Attila the Hun), but those who approve of homosexual behavior in the church, or any particular sin, whether it is adultery or fornication among straight couples, they have abandoned Christianity altogether. Those who approve of these abominations should be put out of the church, per Biblical standards.

As for doctrine, the OPC is solid, if you like Calvin and Reformed theology. I know I do!

Petruchio said:

You're blessed. The OPC is the way to go. PCUSA is Presbyterian in name only.

I am largely indifferent to politics, whether of conservative or liberal bent (though, if I were in charge, I'd be to the right of Attila the Hun), but those who approve of homosexual behavior in the church, or any particular sin, whether it is adultery or fornication among straight couples, they have abandoned Christianity altogether. Those who approve of these abominations should be put out of the church, per Biblical standards.

As for doctrine, the OPC is solid, if you like Calvin and Reformed theology. I know I do!

Click to expand...

Even though most of the moderators voted yes for 10-A meaning they changed the PCUSA book of order to remove stress among the gays and families of gays.
But the wording in the new book of order is too broad to be just for gays. Happily sharing the Gospel can also be for those that are in adultery or fornication. Perhaps a single minister don't want to share their private lives. Some may think virginity is a personal private business. So with the new 10-A in the book of order gives all of us more flexibility. Suppose 30 years from now, most will have no clue that 10-A was designed to make gays more acceptable. 30 years from now there probably have a law against asking if one is a virgin.

I believe homosexual behaviour , any particular sin, adultery or fornication is a private matter to the point where they really could have been called by God to lead churches. The gray areas are too large to narrow down who is doing what.

tulipbee said:

I believe homosexual behaviour , any particular sin, adultery or fornication is a private matter to the point where they really could have been called by God to lead churches. The gray areas are too large to narrow down who is doing what.

Click to expand...

There is certainly a difference between a person who carries these types of sins and, perhaps, struggles with them, (though I still wouldn't want someone who on and off again goes out and cheats on his wife, or goes to a gay bar, to have a position of authority) and a person who not only lives in them and affirms them as acceptable (whether it is private or not, it is no matter), but even seeks sanction in a church! I'm quite positive that if Calvin refused to give communion to the Libertines, we would be justified to keep these same sorts of people (no, even worse!) from the helm of a church. And not on Calvin's say so, but because the scripture condemns their sins, they are in rebellion against God, and scripture requires that all elders in the church be blameless.