Reader Response :
Thanks for the thoughtful and useful commentary. No doubt those on the "non-progressive" side will also find a few things to quibble about, but I feel a need to comment on just one item. Regarding "compromising" on "sexual morality," especially as it relates to the two-thirds world struggling with sexually transmitted diseases: Perhaps I have missed something, but as in the USA most of what I hear in complaint from conservatives in other places is all about the homosexuality, while the crisis of AIDS in those places is primarily a heterosexual issue (made worse by economic conditions that tend to separate families). "Unsafe sex" could in fact easily be identified as "having sex with men." Gay men are doubly at risk, of course. But if one somehow believes that fact reflect God's disapproval, then would one not also be forced to conclude that lesbians have God's special blessing?
Anyone who doubts that those who support openness to gay and lesbian Christians have a pro-marriage an... ...Read Full Response
Response By :
David Carothers -
Harrisonburg , VA - August 19, 2008
Reader Response :
Jack has given us a good trilogy, which reads best when all three pieces are read together in context. I would add one item to his words to his liberal-progressive friends, and that is the unfortunate phenomenon of "left-wing bigotry." We all know what a "right-wing bigot" is. Some on the left may be surprised to learn that they practice the same sort of bigotry toward those on the right. That's what scares some of us. When such persons are given enough power, "local option" will soon become mandated gay ordination, in the same way that local option on women's ordination eventually became mandated. The center of the church should take this potential scenario seriously.
Response By :
Tom Hobson -
Belleville , Illinois - August 18, 2008
Reader Response :
I, too, found this as the word I needed just at the time I need it -- particularly, the reminder, that I too, like the church, tend to be "broken, in error, and unfaithful."
Reader Response :
Jerry,
While I would agree with some of your thoughts on the emphasis placed on "feeling" over "thinking" at times, there is also something to be said for clearing a space in our life together for the Holy Spirit to work. To paraphrase the words of H. Richard Niebuhr, found in his essay "The Grace of Doing Nothing", sometimes our "doing nothing" can be quite productive.
Without simply repeating comments I've already written, I've made some comments in reponse to the Outlook Article "Where are we now?", written by David R. Carlson Monday, 04 August 2008. They would be apropos to some of your thoughts, as well.
In short, my experience of GA was quite different from yours. If you have the opportunity, I would enjoy reading your thoughts in response to my previous post. In sum, I would suggest many of our efforts were, not to "live faithfully without the Faith", they were efforts to regain an authenticity to our faith that was lost long ago when political/cultural agendas, from all... ...Read Full Response
Reader Response :
These are words of grace in an otherwise either/or discussion that open the possibility of expressing faithfulness as one who disagrees but is committed to ministry in the PCUSA. I find this reflection deeply meaningful and in harmony with my own convictions. I look forward to sharing these thoughts with others in the congregation entrusted to my care. Thank you, Robert.
Response By :
Peter Smith -
Blackstone , VA - August 12, 2008
Reader Response :
My friend and brother Jack,
For much of the last 30 years many of us have been offering our views on scripture, and our understandings on God, Jesus, salvation, and the work of the Spirit, and over and over again found ourselves either dismissed or stonewalled by a large proportion of the church. My belief has grown over these years that the real problem in our longterm failure to resolve the ordination issue lies not so much among the strong advocates of the right or left, but among those in the center who so badly want us to find something else to talk about. Of course the progressive / liberals will continue to offer our witness, but will we be given the courtesy of really being listened to? My hope is that next week you'll strongly urge the centrists to vigorously engage with the process and move this discussion to a new place over the next year. In my mind that is best hope for all of us, right, left, and middle.
Response By :
Kenneth Cuthbertson -
August 11, 2008
Reader Response :
Or, perhaps, the winds of change are rising. Perhaps, there is a new voice, neither right, nor left, nor centrist, saying to those who have a vested interest in keeping the conflict alive, because of the symbiotic relationships they have with their opponents (as long as there is an "enemy", it is easier to raise funds for "the cause"), perhaps there is a new voice saying it's time for the conversation to change, it's time our baptismal covenants, rather than our political affiliations, to claim our lives. There is no more "gay" or "straight", right or left, liberal or conservative, pro-life or pro-choice, only sisters and brothers who are gay and straight, et al, and who have much to learn from one another about loving one another - in spite of and because of who they are.
Perhaps, particularly with regard to G-6.0106b and the respective authoritative interpretations, there was an attempt to clean the slate, to go back to a time before there was a paragraph targeting homosexuals, un... ...Read Full Response
Reader Response :
Eight democratic presidential candidates participated in a debate. Iowa during which they discussed health care and other issues. I want to have universal health care. I have stood up against the special interests. It was unions that organized workers, that gave them better wages and working conditions and benefits like health care and pensions. Thank you.
=======================================
quella
http://www.treatmentcenters.org/new-jersey
Response By :
quella quella -
phoneix , arizona - August 7, 2008
Reader Response :
As a commissioner to this GA, I would simply ask, "How have we ammended the constitution?" Whether G-6.0106b remains a part of the constitution will be decided by the presbyteries. (Though the argument could be made that we have reinterpreted G-6.0108 a & b, the real issue is G-6.0106b)
At most, we have opened the way for scrupling belief and behavior. While this will certainly make our life together more difficult at times, it seems preferable to a strict subscriptionism, for such scrupling will not occur outside of the guidance of our presbyteries.
I, for one, would encourage everyone, regardless of our beliefs on homosexuality, to scruple G-6.0106b, as a matter of conscience, for the manner in which it has been selectively applied primarily to the "sin" of homosexuality. Moreover, as we seek the mind of Christ on this matter which divides the church, I would encourage all of us to search our hearts.
Who among us is not convicted, at some place in our lives, by G-6.0106b? Is ... ...Read Full Response
Reader Response :
I am grateful to Chuck Hammond for his insight into the parallelism between the previous Fundamentalist controversy and the present debate over ordination standards. The comparison is right on target!This is a wise word of counsel from one of the ablest leaders of the PCUSA
Response By :
Doug Harper -
Houston , TX - August 7, 2008
Reader Response :
J. Bruce Coleman has said eloquently what I, too, am beginning to hear more of -- the breeze of hope is blowing and energizing those who are working so hard to open our church and its positions of leadership to all God's people who simply trust in God's goodness and purposes as Jesus has revealed them by his life and teachings, death, and resurrection.
Reader Response :
Mark is such a dear and authentic soul. He is the real deal. I love this guy.
I'm glad that Cascades Presbytery held this event, and I'm glad the Outlook reported it. I have been personally and deeply touched by Mark's ministry, odd as it and he are.
Response By :
Steve Yamaguchi -
Long Beach , CA - August 4, 2008
Reader Response :
I don't know Cliff Kirkpatrick personally, but I have heard from mutual friends that he is an incredibly nice, pastoral fellow. I believe them. However, I also believe that his role as Stated Clerk has been a disaster for our denomination. This latest interview confirms in my mind that Cliff sadly has been a self-induced blind guide for the blind. I say this for two reasons deduced from his replies in the ENI interview.
First, he parses his words very carefully regarding the 2007 denominational statistics to obfuscate the facts, yet he still misinterprets the data (if I'm reading things correctly). The article states that he believes "...the reasons for the latest losses are complex and include a combination of aging membership and the departure of some members to a “secular world.” Still, the retiring church official believes data indicate the PC(USA) is now receiving more members from other U.S. denominations than it loses to others." Indeed, the statistics do include a com... ...Read Full Response
Response By :
Mateen Elass -
Edmond , OK - August 4, 2008
Reader Response :
The issue is not so much to allow gay and lesbian ordination, it has been a practice and a reality in the church for quite some time in certain circles. That will not change.
The real issue is if the allowing the full church wide practice of gay/lesbian ordination means that church bodies and various levels of the church, Session, Presbytery will further grant to those organizations the abilty 'not' to ordain if it be their choice and conscious based upon their understanding of Scripture.
The past concerning the process of female ordination in the 1960s and 70s do not bode well for those who may object to the practice.
There is a large difference between the words, "may" "should" and "must". If we are wise we will avoid the pain and mistakes of the past, if not, we fully deserve our fates.
Reader Response :
I liked your analysis. The one point I wish you had made is that the congress must depend upon each other in future debates and votes, like farmers depending upon a neighbor to help them get their harvest in even though they dislike the neighbor.
We act like "the issue" is the key to our own salvation! That's just plain stupid. We can't see the forest for the trees. God is the judge not the GA, Presbytery or congregation. We have lost all sight of the reason the church exists to share the Gospel and the great love of God... We fight because we have forgotten how to love. This is the first Assembly I have missed since 1973... and I was building a school for Mexican children in Valle Hermosa, Mexico... a much better use of my time and witness.
Bruce Berry
Interim Pastor
Marshall, MO
Reader Response :
I was ordained in 1983, the fateful year of "reunion." As far as I can tell, in the past 25 years there has been no union. The presbytery (Twin Cities Area) in which I've served for 23 of those 25 years is the current epicenter of debate about GLBT ordination. After 23 years of debate, I could take either side of this argument and defend it. But I happen to be on the politically incorrect side -- I can't see my way clear to call homosexuality blessed.
I didn't go into ministry to argue with passion over this one issue for 23 years! In his editorial, Haberer makes it sound like argument and debating, or even conversation on this issue is what we're supposed to be about.What a waste of the Holy Spirit and Kingdom resources! I've begun to despair of ever serving a denomination where "the main thing is the main thing" -- letting Christ live through us as we seek to live out the Kingdom of God for the sake of those outside the Church.
Response By :
Judie Ritchie -
Richfield , MN - July 21, 2008
Reader Response :
OK. You're crazy.
More seriously - in Congress, EVERYTHING done is measured for political impact. The position taken by those arguing with passion may or may not reflect their own beliefs about the issue, and may or may not reflect the will of their constituents back home. They may be arguing for side X on issue A because somebody else will then argue for side Y on issue B. Imagine such a trade in the PC(USA) - I'll vote for/against homosexuality as long as you vote on the same side as me on our response to the Middle East.
I think a better model is hockey fights. Two folks pour everything that they have in fights out on the ice. These same players will often get a beer together after the game and laugh about the debates.
When I was a YAD to the Synod of the Northeast in the mid-80's, the hockey fight mindset prevailed. People actually ate together, talked together and laughed together about their positions on issues and the debate itself.
Times have changed. I have run int... ...Read Full Response
Reader Response :
I'm having difficulty with the parsing of words in this letter; specifically the change is to replaceversus the statement the assembly has not removedthe standard of fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness.
It would appear by codifying 'local option' were this amendment to be approved by a majority of the Presbyteries, we've now opened the door to "disUNITY". Each Presbytery, Session, PNC (and appropriate COM) will now be responsible "for discerning a candidate's fitness for ordination. This could get bogged down as a minimum and rather intense should a previously ordained Minister of the W&S from 'liberal' Presbytery A be refused ordination/installation in 'evangelical' Presbytery B. Did the GA really consider the potential divisiveness of their actions? Have they studied Romans 12 recently? Behavior is relevant according to Paul's Epistle.
Given we lost a church per month and 5000 members per month for 2007, the PC(USA) is spiraling toward irrelevance. That is most s... ...Read Full Response
Response By :
Dana GILMOUR -
White Stone , va - July 21, 2008
Reader Response :
I am having trouble reading the comments on the website thank goodness for the emails, well kinda.
someone wrote in a reply:
"We have driven the stake into the ground so many times, we have drawn lines in the sand, and while feeling some personal victory in hurling charges at one another, questioning one another’s faith, and going through every statement with a fine-toothed comb hoping to find some error, some misstatement, something we can question dogmatically, we further crucify Jesus on the cross of our own pride and stubbornness."
It's funny how all these learned Elders forgot Jesus only asked us to go into the world and make disciples, baptising them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He gave us a clear picture of who will be accepted on judgement day: the ones who gave water, visited sick and imprisioned, clothed the naked and .... It's not about how we get along with members of our own faith but how we get along with members in our Christian faith. Mah... ...Read Full Response
Reader Response :
Thank you, Tom Eggebeen, for stating again where we should not bother to spin our wheels. I really have less than no interest in continuing to engage a dogpile picking at my honest expression of faith, which at worst is an attempt to disclaim any authority to pick at others' expressions. If any of you want to engage me in substance, please come to my Yahoo group (link below) and take on my actual interpretations.
I must, however, take one last stand to clarify what I've said and not said: Walter Taylor charges me with denying what I affirmed at my ordination. I have said explicitly that I do indeed "receive and accept the Scriptures ... as God's Word to [me]," but there's no way every English word (in which version?) can be God's words every day. It takes work to hear the Word, sometimes more than other times and from other passages. Women know this particularly well because we have to search behind the interpretive layers to find, for instance, that all the nouns of the creation of ... ...Read Full Response
Response By :
Barbara Kellam-Scott -
July 11, 2008
Reader Response :
Al
Yes. And what distresses me is that no one will say the word. When the issue was raised in Birmingham, the response was, time and time again, "The ordination standards will not change." This was the official response from the PUP TF and the ACC. There was a news report that Sylvia Dooling raised that argument in the Church Orders Committee in San Jose, and I am told the response was that this is not about "local option." I believe the strategies used to persuade have not been honest. I have followed the debate at two GA's now, and I have never heard an advocate for the AI or anyone in an official capacity ever say that it would allow local option.
My position on the ordination of non-celibate gays and lesbians is clear and public. But I believe it is wrong to bypass the presbyteries to accomplish it, for the reasons you state. It damages the very fabric of our polity.
Reader Response :
>If the San Jose AI is found to take precedence over the Birmingham AI, then it would appear a presbytery could allow any departure from our confessional standards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ed, I think that is EXACTLY what many who were pushing both the PUP report and the Knox overture were trying to do. Knowing they could never win an up or down vote on homosexual ordination, the move was to make ALL standards optional.
When Mark Achtemeier visited our PBY before the PUP report was presented, I asked him a string of questions that were all in one simple form: “If PUP was passed, could a presbytery choose to ordain someone who _________ (fill in the blank)”. His answer was always a quick, simple “Yes!” The point was, in his mind, the PUP allowed for any and all beliefs and actions to be scrupled and approved if a church or presbytery chose to do so.
Is this “absurd”? Apparently not to small majorities of the last two A’s.
I think what the last two GA have given us is... ...Read Full Response
Reader Response :
Now that we’ve demonstrated what we all knew last year and the year before, that we have varying takes on Scripture and how it’s to be read, received, interpreted, preached and lived … Where do we go from here?
I’ve had the privilege of reading Gerald Sittser’s book, “Love One Another: Becoming the Church Jesus Longs for,” wherein Sittser reminds us, There is something more important than being right. That something is being loving. Jesus Christ, the LORD of the church, calls us to obey one supreme command: to love one another as Jesus has loved us No disagreement is so important, no division so final, no clash so intense that we are relieved of the responsibility to live like Jesus.
Even as I type these words, I can hear a chorus of folks saying, “Well, Jesus spoke pretty harshly to the Pharisees and told His disciples to shake dust at those who didn’t receive them.”
Yes, yes, yes … but if those be the words that guide and determine how we deal with one anothe... ...Read Full Response
Reader Response :
The change for the church, as I see it, is being able to minister effectively to a different world. I won't go into the details of Post Modernism, but I believe its a reality to contend with. The speakers and leadership of the conference were not prescriptive in what the church needs to look like. They WERE prescriptive however in the need for renewal in Jesus Christ - a calling beyond 'belief' to 'following'. (We have many who claim to be Christians, but how many actually are Christ-Followers?) Sorry you did not like the leadership lineup. I thought it was rather diverse. I certainly did not agree with everything that was said.
One change I see we need is for young adults to be able to take ownership of the Church as older generations die off. There is a financial reality however that staves this off. The senior generations hold the purse strings, and so the church is slow to allow things into worship and church life that are relevant to young adults. SO YAs vote with the... ...Read Full Response
Reader Response :
To Barbara Kellam-Scott,
Two things I would say.
1) Your notion of revelation reminds me of what I once heard characterized as "the inspiration of the moment."
2) Your comment about one of the "Constitutional Questions" asked at ordination and installation seems to forget an important point in it. You state, "I affirm, as I did at my ordination (ruling elder), that it contains "the unique and authoritative witness" to what others of God's beloved children, in very different times and places from mine, could make of their experience of Grace, their wordS, interpreted and reinterpreted through millennia of oral tradition, commentary, selection, redaction, translation, and versioning."
What you have forgotten is that this same question asks you to affirm that the Bible is "God's word to me." You have denied that in your posting.
Reader Response :
Aaron,
Elaborate on "the change" that we need to see and embrace. Given the selection of the speakers for the conference, I seriously wonder it is a "change" that we all can embrace.
Reader Response :
Care to elaborate on your view of that problem Walter?
From the lyrics of David LaMotte: "There isn't much we get to keep. Keep the Change."
I attended the conference. I was significantly renewed in my own spirit by the speakers and the interaction with other attendees. My biggest concern is how to encourage people in the pew's heads out of the sand and see the change, and the need to respond to it. People tend not to see the need to do anything until their in crisis mode. Bring on the crisis!
Reader Response :
The whole direction of the "Church Unbound" conference as reflected in this piece reminds me of a discussion I had with a group of ministers in the wake of the PUP Report. One of the ministers said (and others agreed), "I like the ambiguity of the report, because it reflects the ambiguity of our time."
Looks to me like this conference did to. However, I think that this is a problem.
Reader Response :
Dennis, we certainly have different views of Scripture, but I'm not sure which is higher, lower, or more dangerous to the community. (At least in using that word you've kept to a piece of the topic of the original blog of this thread.)
I am sure that you've misunderstood my claim of authority, because I claim authority only to say what does or does not witness to God's Grace to me and at a particular moment (though I will acknowledge there are some small bits in which I almost never find Grace, and those I avoid). I don't see how that authority can be questioned. What I most appreciate about my community (PCUSA large and small) supporting that authority is that my community is officially open to hear what I have found, and that the cloud of witnesses (including those represented in the Bible as actors, recorders, and interpreters) is ready to engage me in the continuing work of interpretation. I don't consider that work any more finished than the witness, and I thank God for it.
bks
Reader Response :
@bks
Wow, you have a very loooow view of Scripture. Of course we live in a post-historical critical era and must take historical, cultural, rhetorical context into consideration when engaging in interpretation. It seems as though you've taken a position that places yourself over, or at least on par with the text. That seems dangerous, unwise, and ultimately untenable for the denomination.
It is dangerous because you, a redeemed-sinner is making yourself an authority on what and what does not count as a witness to God's grace. It is unwise because, well to put it crudely, who the heck are you? Should the witness of Scripture bow before you just because you happen to live at this time and in this place, where we 'know so much better than they [the writers, redactors, oral sources] did.' Lastly it is untenable because it represents the worst of Protestant ecclesiology, hyper-individualization of interpretation. We read Scripture as a community, a global and historical community. Your po... ...Read Full Response
Reader Response :
Friends, much as I appreciate the conversation I see going on here, it also seems we're again talking past each other because we're speaking somewhat different languages. I see phrases like "God's revealed word" (and sigh relief that it's a small w), and even Drew talks about "the intent of" single verses from Genesis. These just aren't concepts that are either going to win over "the other" or beat her/im into submission.
I myself do not believe that the Bible is God's or anyone's revealed word. I affirm, as I did at my ordination (ruling elder), that it contains "the unique and authoritative witness" to what others of God's beloved children, in very different times and places from mine, could make of their experience of Grace, their wordS, interpreted and reinterpreted through millennia of oral tradition, commentary, selection, redaction, translation, and versioning. They include witness to some things that were not from Grace. I promised only to struggle to let that witness reveal ... ...Read Full Response
Reader Response :
Question is this: What is the intent of the Genesis passages (1:27, 2:24) without which we would not be having this discussion at all? Is it not for the purposes of pro-creation? What of relationships that cannot or choose not to pro-create?
Two caveats, I am not convinced that Paul had homosexual relationships in mind at all that would be of a committed nature. In fact it is hard to argue that the general context from what we know that the idea of homosexuality would be all that supported in the Jewish diaspora or elsewhere. But contexts do change over time and hence our readings change over time. Gagnon makes two points here:
1. That sin itself was not seen as something we can control, and so homosexuality is no different. Therefore, it should be struggled with at all costs as other sins. However, the tension point in Romans is that we are all sinners, that the law condemns us as a result, and that because of the resurrection there is no longer condemnation. While it does n... ...Read Full Response
Reader Response :
"There is enough reasonable doubt in the [Biblical] text to suggest that same sex relationships are not all sinful". Drew, I think this is well stated - probably the key discussion point. Of course I disagree with the statement, but it is a starting point.
I don't see how it could be deemed reasonable to assume that same sex relationships are not all sinful from a text that never even hints that any type of homosexual relationship is blessed by God, and, which, when it talks about sexual relationships that are blessed, always describes them between a man and a women within a life-long marital commitment.
What is the Biblical argument for this "reasonableness"? Given God's original creation of male and female and Christ's definitive endorsement of this God-designed sexual order (Matt. 19) how is it reasonable to jump to the conclusion that God really meant to say that some homosexual relationships were blessed too?
Saying that one Greek word in 1 Corinthians "might" not mean "ho... ...Read Full Response
Reader Response :
I wanted to let you know how much I appreciated your "editor's outlook" article in the May 5 edition, focusing on Aubrey Brown. Aubrey and Sarah were dear friends to Peggy and me. I knew them when I was growing up in Richmond, and some of their children are still good friends - our having served on Presbytery youth councils and going to college together.
But these two saints of the church were especially attentive and caring to Peggy and me during my 12 years as president of PSCE. Rarely if ever did they miss a function to which they were invited to our home, when we were hosting some church or political dignitary, or a committee of the denomination. Frequently one or both of them would come to my office, and sit down to talk over some issue facing the denomination or their vision for PSCE. I loved them both, and was as smitten by Sarah's warmth and insight as I was impressed, inspired and frightened of the man. His straightforward manner contrasted greatly with my "desire to please... ...Read Full Response
Reader Response :
Pastor John Buchanan’s remarks this week to the Covenant Network at the 218 General Assembly compel an answer.
In regard to the Covenant Network’s goal of gaining ordination of homosexuals by removing current ordination standards, Buchanan is quoted as saying: “We’re going to get there because our children are already there. We’re going to get there because business is already there. Education is already there. California is already there. For crying out loud, the military is almost there.”… “The heart of the gospel is inclusion,”… “Change will come because this is not our church but his. It is not the Presbyterian Coalition’s church or the Covenant Network’s church but Christ’s.”
With these words, Buchanan makes abundantly cloudy his view of the difference between the church and business, education, California and “for crying out loud” the military. I’m confused – does he believe the Church belongs to Christ? Or should the church be insp... ...Read Full Response
Reader Response :
continued...Dear colleague in Christ,
Something you ought to understand -- though I cannot quite figure out if you are a practicing heterosexual as I am -- is that we are ALL sexual beings, whether we are homosexual or heterosexual. Practice does not make you more one or the other. You are BORN heterosexual or homosexual. You did not choose which is your inclination. Like it or not, that is a God-given trait. Homosexuality occurs in about 1 in 10 of us. Something that occurs with that much regularity ought to engender something a bit more thoughtful than 'heterosexual ... gooood; homosexual ... baaad; heterosexual ... blessed, homosexual ... cursed;heterosexual ...God accepts them, homosexual ... God curses them.' Homosexuals, of whom I have several friends, just want to be treated as children of God. They do not want some self-righteous person telling them that God made a mistake with them -- that they ought not to have been created and they never will be acceptable to God u... ...Read Full Response
Reader Response :
Dear colleague in Christ,
Forgive me, I do not know how I should address you since you have chosen to avail yourself of the safety of anonymity.
I have read your response several times and finally determined that much of what you have written falls under the heading of sarcasm. For the most part I hope not to respond in kind as that is unworthy of either of us.
As I read your reply I was, each time, driven to ask myself, "Has the person read my entire article or did (s)he merely scan it for hot button items and take them out of context?" I am not sure. You congratulate Jerry for his stand but you have apparently not noticed that he largely ignored most of what I asked and chose, instead, to push the Coalition's agenda. I was ... and am ... looking for serious conversation on serious issues that are confronting our church and our faith.
So, let us begin to try again ... this time with you. You say you are a sinner. Welcome to the table. I am also a sinner as are all of my frien... ...Read Full Response
Reader Response :
Brian:
I too have done my fair share of exegesis so that is a red herring.
Issue of what the Bible explicitly teaches is also not all that compelling nor is the argument from tradition. Regardless of Paul's idea of slavery and how they should be treated, it is clearly never said that we cannot own workers to tidy up the place or tend to our fields without giving them a fair wage. The treatment of women and people of color follow the same course.
My argument is that there is enough reasonable doubt in the text to suggest that same sex relationships are not all sinful. The fear issue to which this post points is a reactionary response that will perhaps skew the results and the actual decision in order to provoke a disapproval of the GA's decisions which is based not on sound discussion, but on rhetoric. That is the part that is unhelpful. Clearly the charge is for people to go back to their presbyteries, engage in heartfelt and intentional discussion over the standards, and to ap... ...Read Full Response
Reader Response :
I continue to believe that we now know what the writers of the books of the Bible did not know thousands of years ago: God made some of us differently than others. I can not, therefore, believe that we should exclude homosexuals from full inclusion in the life of the Presbyterian Church. G-6.0106b must go.
Reader Response :
I think the majority of this year's General Assembly lost sight of what God has called the church to be and do. This action will only serve to make the church more conflicted and divided. More congregations will leave, more missionaries will be called home, more cuts will be made in General Assembly, Synod, and Presbytery staffs. For thirty years the Presbyterian Church has consistently taken the biblical stance. But some refuse to follow it. I wonder if it is now time to admit that we can no longer get along under the umbrella of one denomination. Is it time for the church to split in two? It could be done amicably, with the sharing of the same BOP and office space in Louisville. Each new Presbyterian denomination could set up their own presbyteries, synods, and GA, with their own GA staff. Obviously there is plenty of room in the Louisville headquarter, since more space is becoming available, and we are now in the rental business. These are just some thoughts about the futu... ...Read Full Response
Reader Response :
Drew – I think the term you are looking for is “proof-texting” – but I think you miss my point. I was not using 1 Cor. 6 as an example of how homosexual behavior is sinful (although I think the Bible clearly says it is in other places, quite possibly in this scripture, see below) – but I was using it along with the other scriptures listed to illustrate that both Jesus and Paul used fear as a valid tactic (in these cases fear of eternal punishment ).
I know the Greek (and Hebrew) have done the exegesis, and have read the competing scholarship on the homosexual issue in the Bible (Gagnon, Rogers, et al). It shows me that homosexuality is sinful in all of its forms. Even at times when I have wanted it not to be so – I had to let the Bible change me – I have no right to change the Bible.
You see the burden of proof in this issue is squarely on the liberal point of view (homosexuality in some forms in God blessed). For almost 2000 years the orthodox view has been the C... ...Read Full Response
Reader Response :
This particular decision by the 218th GA is but part and parcel to the church's trust in reason, tolerance, and progress instead of God. Our leaders and congregations are unable to maintain any real element of Christian distinctiveness simply out of fear for the survivial of our "club" in a post-modern world. Our primary goal is to make Christian faith acceptable to contemporary culture.
Reader Response :
Eight years ago when the general assembly sent this same resolution to the presbyteries the church I now pastor split. We lost 300 members and another 200 became semi-active. This decision of GA shows that the Peace Unity and Purity efforts were worth nothing. The Covenant Network is less concerned about the peace of the church, the purity of the church, and the unity of the church than pushing their own cultural agenda. It is a very sad day when we care less for the church than our own idealism. The other part of this is how if this passes can we (with integrity) say that our standard is the Bible any more? If the Old Testament at one time says such practice is "detestable" (Lev. 18:22-24) for sexual immorality, and now we say it is okay? These morals were also confirmed in the New Testament, so it is not just a one time cultural fling. If we really say homosexuality and adultery (for G-6106b forbids both)are okay, then we can say ANYTHING is okay. Lying, stealing, idolatry perhaps t... ...Read Full Response
Reader Response :
I am always amused by the continuing PNS spin on Israel/Palestine issues. One would hope for better from a denominationally-related organization. After 2006, PNS wrote an article not mentioning that the entire mandate on divestment had been re-written. Gratefully, MRTI and others read the actions of the GA, not PNS. Now PNS writes an article not mentioning that a very liberal assembly refused to pick up divestment again, refused to endorse cutting off military aid to Israel, and PNS totally ignored 11-06 in which the denomination instructs itself to take a "non-partisan" approach to issues regarding Israel and Palestine, a huge shift in direction. Gratefully, I am confident our denominational staff and committees will read the 2008 GA actions and not follow the actions as interpreted by PNS.
Reader Response :
Scott, I agree the church should not preach against abortion and practicing homosexuals. Both acts are precluded by self worship (idolatry) and covetousness besides thou shalts not murder, lie, etc.
Can you consider that a sport cannot be played without rules, that driving would be unsafe without rules, that card games cannot be played without rules? Can you consider the creator God would have rules for life, your abundant life? Will you consider putting 1 and 1 together? Abortion (I've had three) is the problematic solution to the problem of adultery and covetousness and idolatry. So, if people don't understand the rules against Adulerty, Covetousness, and Idolatry, doesn't it make sense to at least save the life of the child if they won't listen to the rules for an abundant life?
If a practicing homosexual is more concerned with the approval of others for whom they take to bed isn't that the same as idolatry and covetousness?
If a Christian sees a Christian brother or Christian ... ...Read Full Response
Reader Response :
Thanks for the fine article about our lacks and how we may change to alter the course of our life and other's too. Another adage that seems to stop progress, "It's just easier to do it myself." or "I'm not ready to die yet." This way we are absolved of the responsibilty to pass on our knowledge, our belief, and the joy we find in service to others in the name of Christ. This way, we can let others continue to serve 'til they die with their boots on without guilt or remorse for not even trying to participate.
Then there's just the opposite. When someone declares that they, a saint, are resting because of their age, it's always fun to watch their expression if you should comment, "Don't they sing, 'For all the saints Who from their labors rest' at funerals?"
Please pray for those who are responding to God's call into the mission field and how you can become an active participant as well as a financial and praying supporter.
Reader Response :
What fear? That God will exact Eternal punishment on sinners? That Christians who see other Christians in sin and are calling them on it and are sounding the warning? Gee, sorry I offend you by caring for this and the eternal rest of your life. This is why people don't go to church - they hear the truth that sets them free to attend the church of their choice. If you read your Bible, it explains that Christians are not to associate with unrepentant, Christian sinners. When the buildings, programs, and denominations are run by human beings there will always be sin and error. If one is truly Christian, you will read the Bible and discuss it with others more learned than you, follow the instructions for the abundant life God has for you and tell sinners what you found when you confessed your sin whatever it may be, actually repented, and sought God's will for your life. Until such a time as we can bring our God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - back into focus from ourselves (Baal), we are... ...Read Full Response
