You address those “who want to create the denomination of their dreams” – what of those who sincerely want our existing denomination to simply reflect the infallible Word of God? This is not a “pie in the sky by and by” issue for the opponents of Amendment 08-B (and whatever they will call the next one, and the next one – should two more be necessary to get the BoO wording changed). It is “now” and “real” – and the opponents could well argue that it is the proponents of this particular change who are trying to re-create our denomination according to their image of what it should be!

You talk about “education” as a “better tool than legislation”; you ask if “truth well spoken [cannot] persuade” and “witness well expressed [cannot] convince, and “where’s the evidence to prove your point?” Then you imply that congregational growth due to effective outreach to sexual minorities would “prove” that the opponents are right, that we don’t need sexual minorities in “leadership” in order to grow our churches – we just need to “love” them [my word] into our congregations. With regard to education, well-spoken truth and well-expressed witness, I am certain that the opponents have tried, often, I’m sure, with breaking hearts, to “educate”, to speak truth, and to witness to the proponents. What I believe you are missing here is that the more persistent side wins! They are not interested in evidence! How many sexual majorities, i.e., heterosexual couples in un-Scriptural relationships, do our churches attract “due to [their] effective outreach”? And what happens if and when they DO get them into church? (That’s the subject of a whole other discussion!)

When I read: “If you’re not walking the walk, stop talking the talk”, I was frankly appalled! Jesus was the epitome of “talking the talk” but when it came to “walking the walk”, yes, He associated with sinners, yes, He loved sinners, and yes, He forgave sinners their sins – but NOT so they could continue sinning! He said: “Go, and sin no more!” And He says that to EVERY ONE OF US – not only those persons committing certain sins, sexual or otherwise! Would it have been any different, any better, if the woman at the Samaritan well (who had had five husbands and wasn’t married to the man she was currently with) had been in an intimate relationship with another woman? Aside from the wording about “husbands”, would Jesus have spoken any differently to her? What of the woman caught in adultery – would it have been any less a sin had she been found with another woman?

I treasure the contributions of many wonderful LGBT citizens, Christians, Presbyterians and friends. I also treasure the gifts and contributions of those who rejoice that Amendment 08-B did not pass. I agree with Jack Haberer that legislation is severely limited in it's ability to improve our denomination. I don't think beating folks over the head with law is likely to convert folks. I think it is very important that we realize that we all fall short, and that we avoid hurting one another. Focused education does not seem to me to hold much hope; rather experience with one another, and time.

For me, the key question is "what kind of grace are we talking about?" "Common grace" is extended by God to all, whether or not they have salvation in Jesus Christ. In this sense, of course homosexual couples (or any other sexual partnership) receives "grace." "Saving grace" is something quite different. This is the grace that leads to faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, and thus leads to eternal life. Is saving grace present in sexual relationships that the Word of God, as understood by about 99% of the universal Church throughout space and time, condemns?

There is also the difference between "cheap grace" and "costly grace." Does the affirmation of homosexual unions (or of any other sexual combination, for that matter) reflect cheap grace or costly grace? I would argue costly grace, which shows repentance and spiritual growth, does not lie in affirmation, but rather in conviction, repentance and restoration. The One-by-One Ministry offers God's costly grace to those who struggle with sexual sin. That is the direction the PC(USA) should follow.

What is grace? It is God's kindness expressed in Christ, forgiving us for our sins. What is the purpose then of grace? To lead us to repentance. Romans 2:4 says "Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, not realizing that God's kindness is intended to lead you to repentance," (TNIV).

While it may sound noble and kind to support gay marriage, when God's Word calls homosexual sex a sin (Leviticus 19:22, Romans 1:18ff, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10) then surely we are inflicting an injustice on the gay community. If offers me opportunity to appease my anger and get revenge on the one who has harmed me, that person is no friend at all. Why? Because Jesus tells me to love my enemies and Paul tells me leave vengeance to God.

The Bible says homosexual practice is sin. Many have tried to explain away the above verses, relegated them to outdated contexts. That "scholar" then needs to be ready explain away all the verses surrounding those texts, the full pericopes. Verses like "love you neighbor as yourself" or "do not have sex with your sister." Biblical theology would tell us that when God call something sin, it cannot be good for us, it cannot satisfy us. It can only harm us.

So, in response to Haberer's appeal for grace, rather than offering the false grace that gay marriage will provide the love and commitment one longs for, why can't our churches offer genuine love and care to everyone. Real, non-sexualized, deep friendships bring healing for for those struggling with sexual sin, hetero or homosexual. Jesus wasn't afraid of prostitutes. Jesus didn't avoid adulterers. His love transformed them, "leading them to repentance." Are our churches ready to do the things Jesus did?

You have given an interestng assessment of the vote to not change
the existing policy on fidelity-chastity for ordination. The fact that fewer people even bothered to show up who are for keeping the policy as it is, is telling about the
change in attitude of the renewal groups and their members. I would not charaterize this as being ambilivalent. Rather, I believe the shift is an abandonment of the
"stay, fight, win" attitude that was used the last 10 years and in it's place is a new attitude of TRUST in God.

I see a subtle shift in attitude since the last GA. People
no longer believe in a "denomination of their dreams" but they do believe in a God who will lead them even if that means away from this denomination as we see 200 churches have already done.
Instead there is a shift to trust God's leading, putting energy into ministry, service and outreach evangelism and perhaps - it may eventually mean out of the
PCUSA. Up until this last GA, for me and many like me, we
held on to our love of this denomination and for the structure it gave for our service to God's call. Now there is a willingness to not see this denomination as the only means of serving the Church. There is a way out if that time comes when the concensus goes beyond what
Scripture says about what kind of leaders God wants for His Church. The role of grace is offered for repentance from sin---
not to allow sin to continue. If the goals of the PUP for
concensus ever become a reality and the Fidelity-Chasty rule
is removed allowing local option - there will be many more faithful members leave including many clergy who will not be able to remain. There is no longer fear if that day comes - there is rather, a spirit of courage to be true to the conviction of Scripture for what ever place that may take us as the Holy Spirit leads. The shift in attitude about this denomination is a shift toward God's leadership over an institutions leadership and (just like the Reformation) that is a good thing.

If the question to be raised is what grace looks like in same-sex partnerships, then Mr. Haberer needs to tell us why to stop there. If we are free to ask such a question, then why shouldn't we ask what grace looks like in multiple partner relationships? If we are free to alter the man-woman basis of marriage, then what makes the number two so sacred?

Of course, the more faithful, more Reformed question is what does the Word of God teach us about sexual morality. But I am aware that such a question may well be seen as too passe by the editorial staff of the Presbyterian Outlook.

"let us suspend the ordination debate long enough to allow us to ask what it looks like for grace to be operative in the lives of same-sex couples."

Grace looks like acknowledgement of and repentance from something God's word written calls sin... same as everyone else. And, I might add, God's empowering presence to persevere in joy, to the end. Grace finds its source and its fulfillment in the cross of Jesus. Lets not set people up to crucify him over and over again.

I was quite surprised as I read this article. Although the Outlook seldom publishes articles by Dr. Robert Gagnon, it should. His arguments are on point and follow very closely those presented to the United Methodist Church by Dr. James Holsinger on the topic of homosexuality. He says many things that Dr. Gagnon espouses. Dr. Holsinger, however, moves past the complimentary nature between male and female and analyzes the "harm" (addressed by Dr. Gagnon) caused by homosexual relations - committed or otherwise. Among those harmful consequences of this lifestyle are: tissue laceration;sexually transmitted diseases such as gonorrhea, Chlamydia trachomatis, syphilis, herpes simplex infections, genital warts, lice, scabies, Campylobacter jejuna, Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia, Hepatitis A, B, non-A, non-B and sytomegalovirus; trauma such as fecal incontinence, hemorrhoids, anal fissure, foreign bodies, rectosigmoid tears, allergic procitis, penile edema, chemical sinusitis; and, of course, acquired immuneodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). He also explained that tumors and anal cancer are quite frequent among those who participate in homosexual activity. In addition, the insertion of fists and hands within the rectum, a common practice among homosexuals, is very dangerous and can be fatal.These are only a few of the the "harms" that doctors have seen as homosexuals have required medical help. This does not even begin to address the consequences of homosexual acts - random or within a committed relationship. Are not our bodies the temples of God? Is this how we are to treat the bodies given to us by God? Surely, Mr. Haberer, you can't support such practices. No, our focus should NOT be on committed sexual unions. Our focus should be on the fact that God created the complimentary sexes of male and female, and that sexual unions are only acceptble and safe within that context. I am really surprised at your seemingly casual acceptance of such practices. For they are part of the homosexual sexual expressions. In conclusions, studies have shown that homosexuals are more prone to depression and shorter lives. Could that be caused by the lack of union between two complimentary sexes created by God from the beginning of time?

"Essentials"?

"What essentials"?

Would someone please carefully lay out what those essentials might be?

How can we disqualify someone from departure of essentials, if we are not willing to define them?