Comments for Top court prohibits scrupling fidelity-chastity standard at http://pres-outlook.net , comment 1 to 2 out of 2 comments http://pres-outlook.net Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:16:09 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://pres-outlook.net/news-and-analysis/1-news-a-analysis/6899.html#comment-3836 Jack Haberer -- Just for background, I'm an elder and member of Poland (Ohio) Presbyterian Church. I'm also active in the work of Eastminster Presbytery, but of course what follows represents my personal views, not those of either the local congregation or the presbytery. ============================================== It seems to me that the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Council got it exactly right in its recent rulings on ordination standards. An institution that cannot tolerate verbal dissent from its established polity is doomed to irrelevance and enfeeblement over time, so it is proper to permit candidates for ordination to express disagreements of conscience. At the same time, condoning behavior that clearly conflicts with the Book of Order could create a "slippery slope" on which that document's authority in other areas could be seriously undermined. Furthermore, the PJC was wise not to try to accomplish by judicial action that which cannot presently be achieved by denomination-wide consensus. Let us hope and pray that these decisions will stimulate a fresh approach to the homosexuality issue within the PCUSA and other conflicted denominations. I have come to believe that we are called now to articulate more persuasively an understanding of homosexuality that reflects both contemporary Bible scholarship and accumulated knowledge from the behavioral sciences. Many books, essays and other communications have been published on this topic, so the arguments on both sides are well known. Now we need a commitment to asserting our perception of the truth gently but confidently (even at the risk of losing comity) linked with willingness to listen and confidence that truth will prevail in time. It is essential, though, that the debate be conducted not in heavy theological prose, such as appears in the Peace, Unity and Purity tome of 2006, but in plain English that will speak to those of us in the pews. At the risk of oversimplifying a complicated situation, I suggest that there is a continuum of opinion about the nature of homosexuality and its proper status in our society. On one extreme are those who see it as a private matter among individuals, in relation to which religion and civil law are irrelevant. Next are those for whom Holy Scripture speaks a liberating message of non-judgmental acceptance. In the middle is a large group (probably a majority) who have only superficial knowledge of the issue and who are likely to follow whichever side has their ear. Next to the right are those who see homosexuality as sin but who are open-minded on the subject. Finally, there are those on the other extreme who read the Bible literally, one verse at a time, and will never let go of their conviction that gay and lesbian behavior is irredeemably sinful. The recent General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission decisions should serve as a stimulus to open a new dialogue on this issue. I agree with those who declare that we must be obedient to God's will as expressed in Scripture, but there are important differences among us as to what the Bible really says. This tension must be addressed openly in an atmosphere of mutual love and respect. Study and prayer have led me to believe that the present standard is wrong and hurtful to the many children of God for whom God has chosen a different sexual orientation from the rest of us. I am persuaded that the notion of homosexuality as sin is not supported by careful, unbiased study of Holy Scripture. Is there no difference between the male-on-male violence suggested in the Sodom and Gomorrah story and the consensual same-gender relationships so despised by some today? And what shall we make of Lot , the nice host who offers to throw his virginal daughters to the mob? Is the Bible just a cookbook for Christians, or are we called to study its complexity and honor its depth of meaning? The Israelites described in Leviticus dwelt in tents, multiple generations together, with no community counseling services or jails for social boundary offenders. Are rules that were appropriate for them absolutely right in our very different society? If so, must we follow Leviticus 18 and 20 literally and put sexual offenders of many different kinds to death? If we are obliged to interpret Romans 1:27 as requiring us to judge gays harshly today, what shall we do with the first part of Romans 2? Finally, and perhaps most important, what can we learn from the liberating words and actions of Jesus? There is much in the Gospels about raising people up but nothing about same-gender sex. From this we may reasonably conclude that His message to us today is that homosexuality is not an important issue that should preoccupy or divide us. I believe that Christ is telling us that there are much more important things for us to be saying and doing as Christians. True accord on this matter among Christians may be years away, but let us not be weary in well doing. Let us go where careful, open-minded Bible study takes us, speaking the truth in love, listening patiently and praying that the Holy Spirit will fill us with the right beliefs and the right words so that His way will eventually prevail. - Bob Gillette Thu, 06 Mar 2008 12:00:00 +0100 http://pres-outlook.net/news-and-analysis/1-news-a-analysis/6899.html#comment-3798 As every journey begins with a first step, so the first step has been taken in a process of definition of what it means to be part of this denomination in a post-modern and institutionally fractured world. I suppose that with all determinations by the Suits of the denomination, the activist folks at both ends who do not agree with that determination, will continue to do pretty much as they have pleased in the past, until someone calls them on the carpet for it. The issue at debate is not by definition gays and lesbain rights, or constitutional standards, but what defines our common life together in 2008 and beyond. In other words what is the glue that holds churches together. Is the Presbytery a regulatory/oversight agency as it was in the industrial post-war period where it gave the 'seal of approval' for the actions of individual clegy and churches? In that model the Presbytery acted more or less as the home office, mirroring the actions and behaviors of the home office on Riverside Dr. Or is Prebytery now a somewhat more undefined association of churches and elders working out issues and differences over mission, funds, and policy? Due to the two years of PUP on the books, regional and local differences of polity and practice have already taken root. It is far easier to keep the toothpaste in the tube, rather than try to stuff it back in at a later date. The ordination issue is only the first course. The main dish is of course church property. Follow the money is always the best indicator of future human behaviors. On that matter just how iron clad is the trust clause if one can simply 'buy' or purchase their way out of the covenant or 'trust'. Not much of a trust if you ask me if a dollar sign can be asigned to it at the end of the day. Then again every person has their price. The only issue at hand is just what that price is to be. Not very biblical one must admit, but who ever said the Bible had anything to do with it. - peter gregory Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:00:00 +0100